https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94590 A Customs House Agent who became aware, while handling clearance and delivery, that imported goods under the DEEC scheme were being diverted and nonetheless remained silent breached the duties of proper advice, due diligence and prompt intimation under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. That omission established regulatory misconduct, but it did not by itself prove abetment of smuggling because there was no proof of prior conspiracy or participation in the diversion. Revocation of the Bombay CHA licence was also held unsustainable in its original form because the show cause notice did not expressly propose revocation, and the punishment was moderated by restoring the licence after the period already undergone. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94590 A Customs House Agent who became aware, while handling clearance and delivery, that imported goods under the DEEC scheme were being diverted and nonetheless remained silent breached the duties of proper advice, due diligence and prompt intimation under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. That omission established regulatory misconduct, but it did not by itself prove abetment of smuggling because there was no proof of prior conspiracy or participation in the diversion. Revocation of the Bombay CHA licence was also held unsustainable in its original form because the show cause notice did not expressly propose revocation, and the punishment was moderated by restoring the licence after the period already undergone. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94590