Customs House Agent licence revocation requires proved serious misconduct, not mere procedural lapses or unproven connivance.

Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence was found unwarranted where the shipping bills were signed by the agent, examination of the consignment was attended, and Customs-issued identity cards supported the claim that the persons handling the work were the agent's employees. The record did not establish connivance in misdeclaration or over-valuation, and substantial compliance with authorisation was shown through signed G.R. Forms and shipping documents. Because licence revocation is a severe civil consequence reserved for serious infractions, the proved lapses were held insufficient to justify such exemplary action, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the Customs House Agent licence was justified for alleged absence of proper authorisation, use of unauthorised persons, and alleged complicity in misdeclaration and over-valuation of export goods.

Analysis: The shipping bills were signed by the Customs House Agent, the appellant was present at examination of the consignment, and identity cards issued by the Customs authorities supported the claim that the persons handling the work were the appellant's employees. The enquiry finding did not establish connivance in the manipulation of the export consignment beyond doubt, and the material on record did not justify a conclusion that the appellant knew of the misdeclaration or over-valuation. As to authorisation, signed G.R. Forms and signatures on the shipping documents amounted to substantial compliance with the requirement of authorisation. Revocation of licence is a severe civil consequence and must be reserved for serious infractions warranting exemplary action; the proved lapses did not reach that threshold.

Conclusion: Revocation of the Customs House Agent licence was not warranted and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---