Mandatory enquiry safeguards in customs agent licensing matters were breached, so the revocation order could not stand.

Non-compliance with mandatory disciplinary safeguards under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation 1984 vitiated the revocation of the customs house agent licence. The enquiry officer relied on preliminary statements, but many cited witnesses were not examined and no reasons were recorded for dispensing with them as required by Regulation 23(4), so the agent was denied an effective opportunity of cross-examination. The revocation order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remitted for a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Regulations.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the customs house agent licence could be sustained when the enquiry under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984 was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the witnesses relied upon were not properly examined or made available for cross-examination.

Analysis: The licence had been revoked under Regulation 21 after an enquiry under Regulation 23. The record showed that a large number of witnesses cited in support of the charges were not examined in the enquiry, and no reasons were recorded for dispensing with them as required by Regulation 23(4). The enquiry officer relied on statements recorded at the preliminary stage without conducting the full inquiry contemplated by the Regulations. This deprived the customs house agent of the procedural safeguards built into the scheme, including proper examination of witnesses and effective opportunity to test the evidence.

Conclusion: The revocation order was unsustainable for want of a proper enquiry and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh enquiry in accordance with the Regulations, and the impugned cancellation did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or regulation prescribes an elaborate disciplinary procedure, non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, including recording reasons for dispensing with witnesses and affording effective opportunity of cross-examination, vitiates the resulting adverse order.

---