https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108216 Under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the noticee was entitled to make a representation after the enquiry report, but a personal hearing was not mandatory and the right to cross-examine was not shown to have been insisted upon. The text also discusses proportionality in disciplinary action against a Customs House Agent: proved breaches such as subletting the licence, record-keeping failures, and obtaining passes for non-employees were treated by the majority as largely procedural and not involving revenue jeopardy or illegal importation, so permanent revocation was viewed as excessive. A dissenting view considered the misconduct grave enough to justify revocation. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:25:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108216 Under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the noticee was entitled to make a representation after the enquiry report, but a personal hearing was not mandatory and the right to cross-examine was not shown to have been insisted upon. The text also discusses proportionality in disciplinary action against a Customs House Agent: proved breaches such as subletting the licence, record-keeping failures, and obtaining passes for non-employees were treated by the majority as largely procedural and not involving revenue jeopardy or illegal importation, so permanent revocation was viewed as excessive. A dissenting view considered the misconduct grave enough to justify revocation. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108216