https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370190 A customs house agent licence was revoked and the security deposit forfeited after a statutory enquiry found all five charges proved, including lack of exporter authorisation, use of an unauthorised person, failure to advise compliance and report non-compliance, improper documentation, and subletting of the licence. The challenge based on leniency and disproportionate penalty failed because the licensing regulations did not provide for partial or limited revocation, and the cited precedents were materially different. The decision stresses that interference in disciplinary action against customs house agents is justified only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, mala fide, or tainted by breach of natural justice or prescribed procedure. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:48:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370190 A customs house agent licence was revoked and the security deposit forfeited after a statutory enquiry found all five charges proved, including lack of exporter authorisation, use of an unauthorised person, failure to advise compliance and report non-compliance, improper documentation, and subletting of the licence. The challenge based on leniency and disproportionate penalty failed because the licensing regulations did not provide for partial or limited revocation, and the cited precedents were materially different. The decision stresses that interference in disciplinary action against customs house agents is justified only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, mala fide, or tainted by breach of natural justice or prescribed procedure. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370190