https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84985 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. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:49:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84985 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84985