Customs House Agent licence revocation fails where specific regulatory breach was not notified and employee misconduct was not proved against the licence-holder.

Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence was found unsustainable where the alleged misdeclaration and forged documents were attributed to an employee, but no material linked the licence-holder's directors or other responsible persons to the fraud. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not been specifically put on notice of the alleged breach of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, which formed the basis of cancellation. Generalized allegations of lack of supervision were insufficient to justify the extreme penalty, especially where the licence had remained under suspension for about seven years. The revocation was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the Customs House Agent licence was justified where the alleged contravention related to employee misconduct and lack of supervision, and the appellant had not been put to notice of the specific regulatory breach on which the revocation was founded.

Analysis: The record showed that the alleged misdeclaration and forged documentation were attributed to an employee, while no material was brought to establish involvement of the licence-holder's directors or other responsible persons in the fraud. The adjudicating authority relied on lack of supervision and control and invoked revocation under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was never specifically put to notice of contravention of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, which formed the basis of cancellation, and further observed that the licence had remained under suspension for about seven years. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the delay and available material did not justify the extreme penalty of revocation.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The order cancelling the Customs House Agent licence was set aside, as the proved material did not justify revocation on the facts and the appellant had not been duly confronted with the specific regulatory breach relied upon.

Ratio Decidendi: Revocation of a Customs House Agent licence cannot be sustained merely on generalized allegations of lack of supervision over employees unless the specific regulatory breach is clearly put to notice and supported by material showing a warrant for the extreme penalty.

---