Proportionality in customs broker discipline bars extreme revocation where the proved lapse lacks grave misconduct or mala fides.

A customs broker's licence revocation and security deposit forfeiture were found unsustainable where the proved lapse arose from dealings through intermediaries and the export goods were container-stuffed under Central Excise supervision with seals intact. Although the broker was expected to exercise greater vigilance, the record did not establish grave misconduct or mala fides sufficient to justify the extreme penalty of total revocation. The punishment was treated as disproportionate to the nature of the violation, and the allied forfeiture was likewise set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the customs broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were justified for the alleged violations arising out of the attempted export of prohibited goods.

Analysis: The clearance work had been obtained through intermediaries and the appellant had not dealt directly with the exporter, but the record also showed that the export goods were container-stuffed under Central Excise supervision and the relevant seals were intact. The reasoning accepted that the appellant ought to have been more vigilant, yet held that the facts did not establish such grave misconduct as to warrant the extreme consequence of total revocation. The punishment of licence revocation was treated as disproportionate to the nature of the lapse, and the same reasoning applied to forfeiture of the security deposit.

Conclusion: The revocation of the customs broker licence and the forfeiture of the security deposit were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proved lapse does not disclose grave misconduct or mala fides, the extreme penalty of revocation of a customs broker licence, and allied forfeiture, cannot be sustained if it is disproportionate to the offence.

---