Customs broker discipline requires reliable proof; uncorroborated statements and suspicion cannot sustain licence revocation or penalty.

Proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 are disciplinary in character but carry penal consequences, so the department must prove alleged misconduct on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable evidence. Uncorroborated statements, suspicion and coincidences cannot replace legal proof, and adverse action cannot rest on unsupported allegations when the broker denies them. On the facts described, the evidentiary foundation was insufficient to sustain revocation of the customs broker licence, forfeiture of the security deposit or penalty, so the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 were sustainable when the allegations rested mainly on uncorroborated statements and suspicion.

Analysis: Proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 are disciplinary in character and may entail penal consequences, but the burden remains on the department to establish the alleged misconduct by evidence that would satisfy the test of a prudent person on a preponderance of probabilities. Suspicion, coincidences and doubts cannot replace legal proof. Where the material against the appellant consisted mainly of statements that were not corroborated by independent evidence and the appellant denied the allegations, the evidentiary foundation was insufficient to support the adverse findings.

Conclusion: The revocation, forfeiture and penalty were unsustainable and the appeal succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings carrying penal consequences, uncorroborated statements and suspicion are insufficient to sustain adverse action unless the department proves the misconduct with reliable evidence.

---