Customs House Agent licence rules demand strict compliance; serious repeated breaches justify full revocation, not lenient restoration.

Customs House Agent licensing rules impose strict duties of non-transferability, due diligence, and compliance with suspension and revocation procedures. The text states that where an enquiry establishes unauthorised use of the licence for consideration, repeated violations, and revenue loss, appellate discretion to modify a revocation order must be exercised in line with the gravity of the misconduct. It further notes that in cases of deliberate, serious, and recurring regulatory breaches, partial restoration or leniency is inappropriate, and full revocation with forfeiture of security deposit is the proper regulatory response.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in modifying the Commissioner's order of revocation of the Customs House Agent licence and directing restoration after three years despite proved transfer or subletting of the licence and repeated regulatory violations.

Analysis: The regulatory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962 and the licensing regulations imposes strict obligations on a Customs House Agent, including non-transferability of the licence, due diligence in handling customs work, and compliance with procedures governing suspension, revocation, and appeal. The enquiry report and the Commissioner's order established that the licence had been used by unauthorised persons for monetary consideration and that the violations were serious and recurring, causing revenue loss. Although the Tribunal had power to confirm, modify, or annul the order, that discretion had to be exercised in accordance with law and the nature of the misconduct. In a case involving a chain of deliberate violations and fraudulent export activity, leniency was held to be inappropriate.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in restricting the revocation to three years. The order restoring the licence was set aside and the Commissioner's order revoking the licence and forfeiting the security deposit was restored, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Serious and repeated breach of Customs House Agent obligations, including unauthorized transfer or subletting of the licence, warranted full revocation rather than a lenient modification by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proved regulatory misconduct by a Customs House Agent is serious, repeated, and revenue-affecting, the appellate authority must exercise its modifying power consistently with the gravity of the breach, and unwarranted leniency in the form of partial restoration is impermissible.

---