CHA licence misuse and unauthorized employee passes amounted to regulatory breach, with licence cancellation justified.

A CHA licence is effectively transferred in breach of the licensing regulations when the licence holder allows another agency to conduct CHA work using its licence-backed facilities, blank shipping bills and business operations, even without a formal assignment. Obtaining Customs passes for persons who were not the licence holder's employees also breaches the requirement that business be transacted personally or through duly approved employees, and that charge was proved. A separate allegation of failure to supervise the other agency did not survive independently on the facts. The proved misconduct under the licensing regulations justified cancellation of the CHA licence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether permitting another agency to operate under the CHA licence and supplying blank shipping bills amounted to a transfer of the licence in breach of the licensing regulations. (ii) Whether obtaining Customs passes for persons who were not the appellant's employees contravened the obligation to transact business personally or through duly approved employees. (iii) Whether the third charge of failure to supervise the other agency was proved.

Issue (i): Whether permitting another agency to operate under the CHA licence and supplying blank shipping bills amounted to a transfer of the licence in breach of the licensing regulations.

Analysis: The licence holder had allowed the other agency to use its licence-backed facilities, handed over a large number of blank shipping bills, and permitted its business functions to be carried on by that agency's employees. The arrangement was held to be a transfer in substance, even if not in formal terms, because the licence holder's goodwill and licence were being used by others to conduct CHA work.

Conclusion: The first charge was proved and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether obtaining Customs passes for persons who were not the appellant's employees contravened the obligation to transact business personally or through duly approved employees.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the passes were obtained by representing the other agency's employees as the appellant's employees. Since those persons were not in fact employees of the licence holder, the requirement that business be transacted personally or through duly approved employees was breached.

Conclusion: The second charge was proved and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the third charge of failure to supervise the other agency was proved.

Analysis: The allegation of failure to supervise was inconsistent with the case that the licence had effectively been handed over to the other agency. On that footing, the third charge did not survive independently.

Conclusion: The third charge was not proved and the finding was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The proved misconduct under the licensing regulations justified cancellation of the CHA licence, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A CHA licence is effectively transferred, in breach of the licensing regulations, when the licence holder allows another entity to carry on the licensed business using its licence, facilities, and employee passes, even if no formal assignment is made.

---