Customs confiscation of a foreign-currency bank draft fails where it is neither goods nor foreign exchange under the statute.

A bank draft drawn in foreign currency and marked not negotiable did not fall within the statutory definitions of goods, currency, negotiable instrument, or foreign exchange. Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act failed because the draft was not shown to be export goods attempted to be exported contrary to law. Section 113(h) also did not apply, as no contravention relating to omission from an entry or baggage declaration was established. With confiscation unsustainable, the personal penalty based on that confiscation likewise could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of a bank draft and the consequential penalty were sustainable under Section 113(d) and Section 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bank draft was drawn in foreign currency, was marked not negotiable, and did not answer the statutory description of goods, currency, negotiable instrument, or foreign exchange within the relevant definitions. For confiscation under Section 113(d), the article had to be export goods attempted to be exported contrary to law, which was not established. Section 113(h) also did not apply because that provision was concerned with dutiable or prohibited goods omitted from an entry or baggage declaration, and no such declaration-based contravention was shown. Once confiscation failed, the basis for the personal penalty also disappeared.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not valid and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the order of confiscation and the penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A bank draft drawn in foreign currency, which is neither goods nor foreign exchange within the statutory definitions, cannot be confiscated under the export-confiscation provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and where the declaration-based provision is inapplicable, any penalty founded on such confiscation also falls.

---