Unretracted customs statements may justify CHA licence revocation where serious misuse, sub-letting, and record failures are proved

Unretracted statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act can be treated as reliable evidence in customs house agent disciplinary proceedings when supported by surrounding material. The note states that use of the licence by an outsider for consideration, absence of authorisations, failure to verify transactions, and inadequate records and supervision can establish serious contraventions under the CHA Regulations. In such cases, revocation of the licence is a permissible penalty, and the authority may prefer revocation over suspension where the misconduct is grave, unless the punishment is shown to be illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, or shockingly disproportionate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs house agent licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were warranted on the proved charges of sub-letting the licence, acting without proper authorisation, failing to advise clients, failing to maintain records, failing to supervise employees, and whether the punishment was disproportionate.

Analysis: The statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which were not retracted before the same authority, were treated as valid evidence. They showed that the licence was effectively used by an outsider for monetary consideration, that the appellant did not meet the importers in several transactions, that authorisations were absent in many cases, and that the appellant did not verify classification or maintain proper records. The Tribunal held that the confessional statements and surrounding material established the contraventions under the relevant CHA Regulations. It further held that revocation was justified in view of the seriousness of the misconduct, and that the decision-making authority was entitled to choose revocation rather than suspension in such a case. The Tribunal also declined to follow the single-judge view relied upon by the appellant and preferred the binding jurisdictional precedent on disciplinary control over CHA licences.

Conclusion: The charges were proved and the revocation of the licence with forfeiture of security deposit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the CHA Regulations, unretracted confessional statements under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be relied upon, and where the misconduct amounts to serious misuse or sub-letting of the licence, revocation is a permissible disciplinary penalty unless it is shown to be illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, or shockingly disproportionate.

---