Customs House Agent licence revocation needs proof of conscious connivance; mere facilitation or uncorroborated attribution is not enough.

Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence requires proof of conscious knowledge, participation, connivance, or equivalent culpability in the alleged customs offence; mere facilitation of clearance work is insufficient. The record showed no corroborative material linking the appellant or its staff to the alleged invoice forgery, mis-declaration, or undervaluation, and the relied-upon statement could not be attributed to the appellant. On that basis, the High Court held that the extreme penalty of licence cancellation was unsustainable and quashed the revocation as well as the connected appellate order.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the Customs House Agent licence was sustainable when the alleged misconduct of invoice forgery, mis-declaration and undervaluation was not shown to have been consciously known, participated in, or connived at by the Customs House Agent.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the statement relied upon by the authorities could be attributed to the appellant and whether there was any material showing active knowledge or deliberate involvement in the importer's alleged wrongdoing. The record showed that the person whose statement was relied upon was distinct from the appellant's employee, and there was no corroborative evidence that the appellant or its staff had knowledge of or participated in the forgery or misdeclaration. In proceedings for revocation of a Customs House Agent licence, mere facilitation of clearance work is insufficient; some element of conscious involvement, knowledge, connivance, or equivalent culpability must be shown before the extreme consequence of cancellation or revocation can be sustained.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence could not be sustained and the action against the appellant was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the licence revocation and the connected appellate order were quashed, and the appellant was left free to seek renewal of the licence.

Ratio Decidendi: Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence requires proof of conscious knowledge or connivance in the alleged customs offence, and mere negligence or uncorroborated attribution is insufficient.

---