Customs broker licence revocation requires credible corroboration and proportional punishment, not inconsistent statements and incomplete evidence.

A customs broker licence revocation cannot be sustained on the basis of inconsistent statements and incomplete corroboration. The material relied upon for alleged manipulation of imported consignments was found unreliable because the statements were internally inconsistent on key facts, only a limited set of weighment slips was used, and no statement was taken from another relevant weighbridge operator. The commentary also stresses that an extreme penalty should not be imposed without considering a lesser alternative, particularly where the broker cooperated in the inquiry and made payment towards the revenue loss. The stated principle is that revocation and forfeiture require credible, corroborative evidence and a proportionate response to the proven misconduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit were justified on the basis of the investigation and statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the alleged manipulation of weight of imported consignments was proved with reliable and corroborative material. The statements relied upon by the department were found to be internally inconsistent, particularly as to who instructed the alleged manipulation and the period during which it occurred. The record also showed that only a few weighment slips were relied upon though more were said to have been produced, and no statement was taken from the other weighbridge operator who was said to be present. In these circumstances, the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively sustain the charge. The order also imposed the extreme penalty of revocation without considering a lesser alternative, even though the appellant had cooperated in the inquiry and made payment towards the revenue loss.

Conclusion: Revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security deposit were not justified and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained relief against the order revoking the licence.

Ratio Decidendi: A drastic regulatory penalty such as revocation of a customs broker licence cannot be sustained unless the charge is established by credible and corroborative evidence, and the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proven misconduct.

---