Customs House Agent discipline: proved regulatory breaches justified revocation and forfeiture, with no interference absent disproportionality.

A customs house agent licence was revoked and the security deposit forfeited after a statutory enquiry found all five charges proved, including lack of exporter authorisation, use of an unauthorised person, failure to advise compliance and report non-compliance, improper documentation, and subletting of the licence. The challenge based on leniency and disproportionate penalty failed because the licensing regulations did not provide for partial or limited revocation, and the cited precedents were materially different. The decision stresses that interference in disciplinary action against customs house agents is justified only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, mala fide, or tainted by breach of natural justice or prescribed procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs house agent licence and forfeiture of security deposit under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 called for interference on the ground of leniency or disproportionate penalty.

Analysis: The appellant's licence had been revoked after a statutory enquiry in which all five charges were found proved, including breach of the obligations relating to authorisation from the exporter, use of an unauthorised person, failure to advise compliance and report non-compliance, improper documentation, and subletting of the licence. The plea for reduction of the penalty on equitable grounds was rejected because the Regulations did not contemplate partial or limited revocation, and the facts were materially different from the precedents relied on. The order emphasised that in disciplinary matters concerning customs house agents, interference is warranted only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, mala fide, or vitiated by breach of natural justice or procedure.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the revocation and forfeiture were upheld; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs house agent is found, after due enquiry, to have committed multiple proved breaches of the licensing regulations, the appellate forum should not interfere with revocation or forfeiture unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by breach of natural justice or prescribed procedure.

---