Customs House Agent misconduct proceedings require cross-examination and corroboration; concurrent shipping agency alone is not misconduct.

Alleged misconduct of a Customs House Agent can be proceeded against under Regulation 21(c) read with Regulation 23 where the notice expressly alleges unbecoming conduct, and Regulation 22 is not the exclusive route. Statements of passengers recorded in other proceedings were inadmissible because they were not examined in the inquiry or made available for cross-examination, and a retracted statement of the proprietor required independent corroboration that was absent. No express prohibition barred a CHA from also acting as a shipping or consolidating agent, so that concurrent business alone did not constitute misconduct. The revocation of the temporary licence and forfeiture of security were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether alleged non-compliance with the obligations of a Customs House Agent could be proceeded against under Regulation 21(c) and Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, or only under Regulation 22; (ii) whether the statements of the passengers recorded in other proceedings were admissible and whether the charges of failure to obtain authorisation, failure to advise compliance, refusal of access to records, non-maintenance of records, and abetment of smuggling were proved; (iii) whether acting as a shipping or consolidating agent, in addition to holding a CHA licence, amounted to misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether alleged non-compliance with the obligations of a Customs House Agent could be proceeded against under Regulation 21(c) and Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, or only under Regulation 22.

Analysis: The charges were not confined to mere breach of obligations under Regulation 14. The notice also alleged conduct unbecoming of a Customs House Agent, including acting as consolidating agent and abetment of smuggling. Once misconduct was expressly alleged, the procedural machinery of Regulation 23 was attracted. Regulation 21(c) was wide enough to cover conduct rendering the licence-holder unfit to transact business, and Regulation 22 was not an exclusive provision limiting action only to section-wise restriction.

Conclusion: The invocation of Regulation 21(c) and Regulation 23 was valid and the preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements of the passengers recorded in other proceedings were admissible and whether the charges of failure to obtain authorisation, failure to advise compliance, refusal of access to records, non-maintenance of records, and abetment of smuggling were proved.

Analysis: Regulation 23 required oral evidence to be recorded in the inquiry and the delinquent to be given an opportunity of cross-examination. The passengers were neither examined in the inquiry nor offered for cross-examination, so their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be used as evidence in the proceedings. The remaining material was principally the retracted statement of the proprietor, which required corroboration on material particulars. On the available record, there was no sufficient independent evidence to prove that the appellants acted as CHA for the passengers, failed to obtain authorisation, failed to advise them, refused access to records, failed to maintain records, or abetted smuggling. The finding under the Customs Act that no penal liability was made out also materially weakened the allegations.

Conclusion: The charges based on the passengers' statements and the proprietor's retracted statement were not established.

Issue (iii): Whether acting as a shipping or consolidating agent, in addition to holding a CHA licence, amounted to misconduct.

Analysis: The Regulations did not contain any prohibition against a CHA also functioning as a shipping or consolidating agent. The admitted concurrent business, without an express bar or proof of impropriety, could not by itself be treated as conduct unbecoming of a Customs House Agent. The observation regarding change in constitution did not apply to the mere undertaking of allied business.

Conclusion: The allegation of misconduct on this basis was not made out.

Final Conclusion: The revocation of the temporary CHA licence and the forfeiture of the security deposit were unsustainable and were set aside, with restoration of the licence.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, oral statements recorded in other proceedings are not admissible unless the witness is examined in the inquiry and made available for cross-examination, and a retracted statement by itself cannot sustain revocation without independent corroboration of the alleged misconduct.

---