Export NOC not mandatory for drug goods; uncorroborated forgery allegations cannot sustain confiscation or penalties.

Export of goods classified as drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act did not require a no objection certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller, because the statutory scheme contained no export restriction or mandatory NOC requirement and the goods had previously been exported. Allegations of forged signatures on the certificate were not proved by expert or corroborative evidence, so the basis for treating the export as improper failed. In the absence of a valid foundation for confiscation under the Customs Act, the confiscation order and the consequential penalties on the exporter and other appellants could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether export of the goods required a no objection certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; (ii) Whether confiscation of the goods and penalties on the exporter and other appellants were sustainable on the allegation of forged signatures on the certificate.

Issue (i): Whether export of the goods required a no objection certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Analysis: The goods were held to fall within the definition of drugs under Section 3(b)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. At the same time, the statutory scheme relied upon did not contain any provision imposing a restriction on export of such goods or making an export no objection certificate mandatory. The record also showed that the goods had been allowed to be exported in earlier and later instances.

Conclusion: The no objection certificate was not required for export, and the objection on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the goods and penalties on the exporter and other appellants were sustainable on the allegation of forged signatures on the certificate

Analysis: The allegation of forgery was not supported by expert evidence or other corroboration. Since the foundation for treating the export as improper was not established, the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. Once confiscation failed, the penalties imposed on the appellants could not survive as consequential relief.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export of goods is not prohibited by the governing statute and the allegation of forgery is uncorroborated, confiscation and consequential penalties cannot be sustained.

---