https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269009 Revocation of a CHA licence is justified only where proved violations are grave and substantive; technical or procedural lapses, without revenue loss, do not warrant the extreme penalty of cancellation and full forfeiture. The allegations of sub-letting and use of a non-employee for customs clearance were found unproved because the impugned work was done by an admitted employee and no consideration for licence use was shown. Alleged breaches relating to record keeping, delay in producing documents, and verification of importer antecedents were treated as technical, not serious, violations. The penalty was reduced, full forfeiture was set aside, and restoration of the CHA licence was directed. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269009 Revocation of a CHA licence is justified only where proved violations are grave and substantive; technical or procedural lapses, without revenue loss, do not warrant the extreme penalty of cancellation and full forfeiture. The allegations of sub-letting and use of a non-employee for customs clearance were found unproved because the impugned work was done by an admitted employee and no consideration for licence use was shown. Alleged breaches relating to record keeping, delay in producing documents, and verification of importer antecedents were treated as technical, not serious, violations. The penalty was reduced, full forfeiture was set aside, and restoration of the CHA licence was directed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269009