CHA licence revocation may be relaxed on special facts, while security deposit forfeiture can remain intact.

A statutory tribunal may, on sound judicial principles and in the peculiar facts of a case, grant relief against revocation of a CHA licence despite proven misuse of the licence by permitting third parties to use it and sign export documents. Here, the long suspension and subsequent revocation were treated as sufficient grounds to revive the licence from 1-7-2004, reflecting discretionary leniency after a substantial deprivation of livelihood. The separate forfeiture of the security deposit was left undisturbed, as revocation relief did not require interference with that independent consequence, and fresh security could still be insisted upon as a condition of revival.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revocation of the CHA licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 should be interfered with in exercise of discretion having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether the order forfeiting the security deposit could be disturbed while granting relief on revocation.

Issue (i): Whether the revocation of the CHA licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 should be interfered with in exercise of discretion having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had permitted third parties to use his CHA licence and sign export documents, which amounted to breach of the obligations imposed on a Custom House Agent. The Tribunal noted that while such misuse justified serious action, statutory discretion in an appropriate case could be exercised on sound judicial principles. Considering that the licence had been under suspension from 1998 and revoked in 2000, and that the appellant had been deprived of his livelihood for a substantial period, the Tribunal held that the circumstances justified undoing the revocation at that stage.

Conclusion: The revocation was interfered with and the CHA licence was directed to stand revived from 1-7-2004.

Issue (ii): Whether the order forfeiting the security deposit could be disturbed while granting relief on revocation.

Analysis: The Tribunal expressly distinguished the relief on revocation from the separate consequence of forfeiture of security. It held that the forfeiture order need not be disturbed even though the licence was revived, and left it open to the Commissioner to insist on fresh security as incidental to revival of the licence.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of security was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the continuing effect of the licence revocation, while the forfeiture of security remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal may, on sound judicial principles and in the peculiar facts of a case, exercise discretion to grant lenient relief against revocation of a CHA licence notwithstanding proven breach, while maintaining a separate forfeiture consequence where warranted.

---