CHA licence revocation requires grave proved violations; technical lapses alone do not justify cancellation or full security forfeiture.

Revocation of a CHA licence is justified only where proved violations are grave and substantive; technical or procedural lapses, without revenue loss, do not warrant the extreme penalty of cancellation and full forfeiture. The allegations of sub-letting and use of a non-employee for customs clearance were found unproved because the impugned work was done by an admitted employee and no consideration for licence use was shown. Alleged breaches relating to record keeping, delay in producing documents, and verification of importer antecedents were treated as technical, not serious, violations. The penalty was reduced, full forfeiture was set aside, and restoration of the CHA licence was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the CHA licence was sub-let and Regulation 12 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was breached; (ii) whether customs clearance work was undertaken through a person who was not an employee in violation of Regulation 13(b) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004; (iii) whether the alleged lapses in record keeping, delay in clearance, and non-verification of importer antecedents constituted breaches of Regulations 13(k), 13(n), and 13(o) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004; and (iv) whether revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the entire security deposit were justified.

Issue (i): whether the CHA licence was sub-let and Regulation 12 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was breached.

Analysis: The alleged sub-letting rested on the employment of a part-time person who was also working elsewhere and had been issued a G card. No evidence was shown that any consideration was received for use of the licence. The person concerned did not actually handle the impugned clearance work.

Conclusion: The charge of sub-letting was not proved.

Issue (ii): whether customs clearance work was undertaken through a person who was not an employee in violation of Regulation 13(b) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Analysis: The clearance work in the relevant transaction was done by an admitted employee of the CHA and not by the person whose employment was questioned.

Conclusion: The charge under Regulation 13(b) was not proved.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged lapses in record keeping, delay in clearance, and non-verification of importer antecedents constituted breaches of Regulations 13(k), 13(n), and 13(o) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Analysis: The record-keeping allegation was essentially confined to muster rolls and cash records, while the person concerned was shown in the muster roll and salary vouchers. The delay in producing the BIS certificate was attributed to the importer, and there was no demonstrated customs prejudice. As to antecedent verification, the importer was not shown to be bogus and authorisation documents were available; the lapse, if any, was technical.

Conclusion: The alleged breaches under Regulations 13(k), 13(n), and 13(o) were not established as grave or substantive violations.

Issue (iv): whether revocation of the licence and forfeiture of the entire security deposit were justified.

Analysis: The infractions, if any, were only technical in nature, no loss to revenue was shown, and the punishment had to match the gravity of the misconduct.

Conclusion: Revocation and full forfeiture were not warranted; the penalty was reduced and the licence was ordered to be restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with the drastic penalty set aside and substituted by a reduced forfeiture, while restoration of the CHA licence was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revocation of a CHA licence is justified only for proved and grave violations; technical or procedural lapses without revenue loss do not warrant the extreme penalty of licence cancellation and full forfeiture.

---