Re-export of non-conforming imported goods cannot be made subject to proof of foreign exchange repatriation.

Imported goods found not to conform to the prescribed food standard were excluded from domestic consumption and directed to be re-exported. The additional condition that the importer first prove repatriation of foreign exchange was held unsustainable because it had no basis in the notice or findings and operated as an extra penal burden. Foreign exchange issues were treated as matters for the general law and the appropriate regulatory authority, not as a prerequisite to re-export in customs proceedings. The re-export direction therefore stood without the foreign-exchange condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition requiring proof of repatriation of foreign exchange as a prerequisite for permitting re-export of the imported goods was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The imported goods were found not to conform to the prescribed food standard and were liable to be kept out of domestic consumption. The object of the import restriction was achieved once the goods were not permitted to be used in the country and were directed to be re-exported. The additional requirement that the importer first establish receipt of foreign exchange had no basis in the notice or in the findings, and in substance operated as a further penal burden. Matters concerning foreign exchange were held to fall within the general law and the appropriate regulatory authority, rather than as a condition for re-export in the customs proceedings.

Conclusion: The condition requiring proof of repatriation of foreign exchange before re-export was set aside, and the goods were allowed to be re-exported without that condition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are directed to be re-exported because they cannot be allowed into domestic circulation, an additional condition unrelated to the statutory basis of confiscation or re-export, and not supported by the notice or findings, cannot be imposed as a prerequisite for re-export.

---