Security deposit forfeiture under customs agent licensing rules is an additional statutory consequence and cannot be reduced on equitable grounds.

Regulation 21(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was read as allowing forfeiture of security deposit as an additional consequence linked to suspension or revocation of licence, not as a free-standing penalty divorced from licence action. The text also notes that the charges of unauthorised baggage clearance, poor maintenance of records, and inadequate supervision were supported by the facts on record. It further states that the Regulations do not authorise partial forfeiture or reduction of the security deposit on equitable grounds, and that inherent or incidental powers cannot override the express statutory scheme. The forfeiture order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Regulation 21(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits forfeiture of security deposit without an accompanying order of suspension or revocation of licence; (ii) whether the charges of unauthorised baggage clearance, improper maintenance of records, and failure of supervision were established; and (iii) whether the amount of security deposit forfeited could be reduced by invoking inherent powers.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 21(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits forfeiture of security deposit without an accompanying order of suspension or revocation of licence.

Analysis: The provision empowers the jurisdictional Collector to suspend or revoke the licence and also to order forfeiture of security deposit. Read harmoniously, the use of the words "or" between suspension and revocation and the expression "and also" before forfeiture indicates that forfeiture is an additional power, not a standalone punishment divorced from action concerning the licence. On a plain reading, the Regulation does not contemplate forfeiture of security deposit simplicitor to the exclusion of suspension or revocation. However, in the facts of the case, another simultaneous proceeding had resulted in suspension of the licence by the same authority on the same day, and the omission to reiterate that fact in the impugned order did not justify setting aside the order on a purely technical objection.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the forfeiture order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the charges of unauthorised baggage clearance, improper maintenance of records, and failure of supervision were established.

Analysis: The employee concerned was admittedly attached to the appellants and was found attending to baggage clearance in the customs area without proper authorisation. The record also showed that the appellants did not maintain regular and proper accounts of the baggage forms, as their own reply disclosed filing of documents according to convenience and preparation of accounts only when the accountant came to office. These facts supported the findings that the employee acted without due authority, the records were not properly maintained, and adequate supervision was not exercised over the employee's conduct.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the amount of security deposit forfeited could be reduced by invoking inherent powers.

Analysis: The Regulations do not confer discretion to forfeit only part of the security deposit once forfeiture is ordered. The security deposit serves as protection for faithful conduct and reimbursement of losses, and the scheme of the Regulations does not permit the Collector to scale down the forfeiture amount on equitable grounds. The incidental or ancillary powers recognised in judicial decisions cannot be used to override an express statutory scheme where no such discretion is provided. In the circumstances of the case, including the contemporaneous suspension order, no ground existed to interfere with the full forfeiture.

Conclusion: Reduction of the forfeited amount was refused.

Final Conclusion: The order of forfeiture was sustained and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing regulation authorises forfeiture of security deposit as an additional statutory consequence and does not confer discretion to forfeit only part of the deposit, the authority cannot invoke inherent powers to reduce the forfeiture contrary to the express scheme of the Regulations.

---