https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50717 A CHA licence could not be revoked merely because service charges for customs clearance were received through intermediaries rather than directly from importers or exporters. The regulations prohibited sale or transfer of the licence and required client authorisation and personal conduct of customs work, but the record showed importer/exporter signatures on shipping bills and bills of entry, no dispute about the CHA relationship, and no evidence of unauthorised transaction through another person. On those facts, the alleged breach was not proved to justify the extreme penalties of revocation and forfeiture, and substantial compliance with authorisation requirements was treated as sufficient. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50717 A CHA licence could not be revoked merely because service charges for customs clearance were received through intermediaries rather than directly from importers or exporters. The regulations prohibited sale or transfer of the licence and required client authorisation and personal conduct of customs work, but the record showed importer/exporter signatures on shipping bills and bills of entry, no dispute about the CHA relationship, and no evidence of unauthorised transaction through another person. On those facts, the alleged breach was not proved to justify the extreme penalties of revocation and forfeiture, and substantial compliance with authorisation requirements was treated as sufficient. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50717