Customs house agent licence revocation can be modified when violations are procedural and punishment is disproportionate.

Procedural contraventions in customs house agent licensing were treated as less than grave misconduct, and the modified punishment was found proportionate to the violations. The Tribunal had concurrently upheld the charges but accepted that the respondents had already been out of business for a substantial period, so limited restoration of the licence was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The appellate authority was therefore not shown to have exceeded its power in modifying the revocation order, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority had power to modify the revocation of the customs house agent licence and whether the Tribunal's order warranted interference on the ground that a substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: The contraventions found against the respondents were treated as procedural in nature rather than grave misconduct. The Tribunal had concurrently held the charges proved, but also found that the respondents had already been out of business for a considerable period and that the modified punishment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In such circumstances, the appellate authority was not shown to have acted beyond its power in granting limited restoration of the licence, and the punishment imposed was assessed as proportionate to the violations.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's modification of the revocation order was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

---