Revocation of Customs House Agent licence challenged for denial of natural justice; appeal allowed for lack of independent proof

Revocation of a customs house agent licence and forfeiture of security are challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness and evidentiary insufficiency. The commentary emphasises that reliance on an inquiry officer's conclusion without examining or supplying relevant records violated natural justice and procedural fairness, preventing effective defence; consequence: such reliance is legally infirm. It further states the department bears the burden to prove violation independently in each adjudication, and prior adverse findings in other matters cannot substitute for fresh, independent proof; operative effect: the appeal was allowed with consequential relief where these defects existed.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposited under Regulation 20(1) read with Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 is sustainable where the inquiry report relied upon by the adjudicating authority was completed without receipt or examination of primary records and without affording the appellant an opportunity to defend.

Analysis: The inquiry report recorded non-receipt of copies of the UB bill of deposit records and connected documents called for from Chennai Customs. The inquiry concluded without examination or verification of those primary records. Where action to revoke a licence and forfeit security is based substantially on an inquiry, procedural fairness requires that the inquiry examine material evidence and that the affected party be given an opportunity to receive and contest such material. Reliance on an inquiry completed without obtaining or permitting inspection of crucial documents undermines the admissibility and weight of the inquiry report. Prior adverse findings in other proceedings do not relieve the authority of proving the case afresh in the present proceeding.

Conclusion: The revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of security are not sustainable because the inquiry report was completed without examination of crucial primary records and procedural fairness was not observed; appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---