CHA licence revocation requires clear proof of transfer, sale, or unauthorised customs work, not merely intermediary payments.

A CHA licence could not be revoked merely because service charges for customs clearance were received through intermediaries rather than directly from importers or exporters. The regulations prohibited sale or transfer of the licence and required client authorisation and personal conduct of customs work, but the record showed importer/exporter signatures on shipping bills and bills of entry, no dispute about the CHA relationship, and no evidence of unauthorised transaction through another person. On those facts, the alleged breach was not proved to justify the extreme penalties of revocation and forfeiture, and substantial compliance with authorisation requirements was treated as sufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs house agent's licence could be revoked and the security deposit forfeited on the ground that service charges for customs clearance work were received through intermediaries and not directly from the importers or exporters, thereby constituting a breach of the licence and authorisation requirements under the customs house agents regulations.

Analysis: The charge of transfer or sale of the licence rested essentially on the mode of receipt of payment for services rendered in a limited period. The regulations prohibited sale or transfer of the licence and required authorisation from clients and personal transaction of business or through an approved employee. The record showed that the shipping bills and bills of entry carried the signatures of the importer or exporter and the CHA, the concerned importers or exporters did not dispute the appellant's role as their CHA, and there was no evidence that the appellant had transacted customs work through an unauthorised person. The legal arrangement recognised by the Customs Act also did not support the conclusion that payment had to be received directly from the importer or exporter as a condition for valid CHA work. On these facts, the alleged violation was not established to the extent needed to sustain the extreme penalty of revocation and forfeiture.

Conclusion: The revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were not justified and were set aside, resulting in success for the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A CHA licence cannot be revoked on the mere ground that service charges were collected through intermediaries unless there is clear evidence of transfer or sale of the licence or of unauthorised transaction of customs business; substantial compliance with authorisation requirements is sufficient.

---