Customs house agent licence revocation requires proof of conscious involvement and proportional punishment for proved misconduct.

A customs house agent licence could not be revoked on the facts because the alleged unlawful transfer or subletting, absence of valid authorisation, and failure to handle consignments personally or through an approved employee were not proved. The record did not establish conscious transfer of the licence, lack of employee status, or knowledge of the importer's misdeclaration or evasion. Revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit were held disproportionate in the absence of proof of culpable participation or active facilitation. The licence was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charges of unlawful transfer or subletting of the customs house agent licence, failure to obtain authorisation, and failure to handle consignments personally or through an approved employee were established. (ii) Whether revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security deposit was justified on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the charges of unlawful transfer or subletting of the customs house agent licence, failure to obtain authorisation, and failure to handle consignments personally or through an approved employee were established.

Analysis: The record did not show that the appellant had knowingly transferred the licence or that Shri Amit S Momayya was not an employee. The authority letter from the ostensible importer was found to exist, and the Regulations did not require customs acknowledgement of every authorisation. There was also no evidence that the appellant was aware of the importer's misdeclaration or intended evasion, or that the appellant had contributed to deception of the customs authorities.

Conclusion: The charges of subletting or transfer, absence of authorisation, and failure to act personally or through an approved employee were not established.

Issue (ii): Whether revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security deposit was justified on the facts.

Analysis: Revocation is an extreme penalty and must be proportionate to the proved infraction. In the absence of evidence of knowledge, mens rea, or active facilitation of the offence, and where the inquiry report and order failed to properly assess the extent of the appellant's culpability, the punishment of revocation was disproportionate.

Conclusion: The order revoking the licence and forfeiting the security deposit was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant's licence was restored, as the proved material did not justify the extreme penalty imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs house agent's licence cannot be revoked without proof of conscious involvement or culpable participation in the underlying violation, and the penalty must be proportionate to the proved misconduct.

---