Failure of supervision in CHA licensing requires proof of knowledge, involvement, or benefit; revocation was unjustified on these facts.

A Customs House Agent licence could not be revoked under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 unless a legal failure of supervision was established. The record showed that the employees acted in their personal capacity without the knowledge or involvement of the CHA or its partners, and prior enquiry findings had already exonerated the CHA from abetment and collusion. There was no proof that the partners or directors knew of the fraud, that the licence had been sublet, or that the CHA benefited from the misconduct. On those facts, revocation was treated as an unjustified grave and permanent disabling measure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs House Agent failed to exercise proper supervision over its employees so as to justify revocation of the CHA licence under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: The record showed that the employees concerned acted in their personal capacity, without the knowledge or involvement of the CHA or its partners, and the earlier enquiry findings had already exonerated the CHA from abetment and collusion. The evidence did not establish that the directors or partners were aware of the fraudulent acts, nor that the licence was sublet or that the CHA had derived any benefit from the misconduct. The revocation of licence, being a grave and permanent disabling measure, was found unjustified on these facts, particularly when the misconduct of the employees had not been shown to amount to a failure of supervision by the CHA in the legal sense contemplated by the regulation.

Conclusion: The alleged failure of supervision under Regulation 20(7) was not established, and revocation of the CHA licence was not sustainable.

---