Proportionality in Customs House Agent discipline supports reduced penalty where misconduct is proved but permanent revocation is unwarranted.

In Customs House Agent disciplinary proceedings, the sanction must be proportionate to the gravity of the regulatory breach, and permanent revocation is not automatic merely because some violations are proved. Where the Tribunal assessed the agent's limited role, the surrounding circumstances, and the nature of the misconduct, it could substitute partial revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit for the severest penalty. The High Court found no perversity or lack of material in that approach and accepted that punishment may be calibrated to the lapse and the period already spent out of business. The Revenue's challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside permanent revocation of the Customs House Agent licence and in substituting it with partial revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit, despite findings of violation of the licensing regulations.

Analysis: The allegations arose from misuse of the import exemption scheme and the customs authorities invoked the show-cause mechanism under the Customs Act and the licensing regulations. The evidence was examined issue-wise. On the question of unauthorised operation of the licence and failure to obtain proper authorisation, the Tribunal found that the material did not warrant the extreme penalty of permanent revocation, particularly in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the agents' role, and the manner in which the work had been handled. On the alleged failure to inform the proper officer about post-clearance diversion and other violations, the Tribunal treated the conduct as insufficient to justify the severest consequence where the goods had already been cleared and the role attributed to the agent was limited. The Court found no perversity or absence of material in the Tribunal's approach and accepted that, in such matters, the authority may calibrate punishment according to the gravity of the lapse and the period for which the agent had already been kept out of business. The Court also relied on the consistent line of authority that revocation need not follow automatically where lesser penalty would meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's substitution of permanent revocation with partial revocation and forfeiture of security deposit was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings against a Customs House Agent, even where some regulatory violations are proved, the penalty must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and a finding that permanent revocation is unnecessary will not be interfered with unless it is perverse or unsupported by material.

---