https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369902 Where only a procedural breach under Regulation 14(d) was proved and the more serious allegations under Regulations 14(a) and 14(l) were not established, the Tribunal could justifiably set aside cancellation of the Customs House Agent licence and adopt a lenient view. The Court accepted that the regulatory scheme allowed interference with the severity of revocation where warranted by the circumstances, and held that the Tribunal's discretion was not arbitrary or unlawful. It also found the Tribunal's appreciation of the evidence on Regulations 14(a) and 14(l) to be a plausible view on record, not perverse or unsupported by evidence. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369902 Where only a procedural breach under Regulation 14(d) was proved and the more serious allegations under Regulations 14(a) and 14(l) were not established, the Tribunal could justifiably set aside cancellation of the Customs House Agent licence and adopt a lenient view. The Court accepted that the regulatory scheme allowed interference with the severity of revocation where warranted by the circumstances, and held that the Tribunal's discretion was not arbitrary or unlawful. It also found the Tribunal's appreciation of the evidence on Regulations 14(a) and 14(l) to be a plausible view on record, not perverse or unsupported by evidence. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369902