Omitted statutory rule cannot sustain export confiscation, penalty or redemption fine without a saving clause

Exported goods could not be treated as prohibited on the basis of Rule 31 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1997 where no specific foreign legal prohibition was proved and the alleged import restriction was only assumed. In any event, Rule 31 had already been omitted from the statute book before the show cause notice, and in the absence of a saving clause proceedings could not continue on that deleted provision. Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, confiscation of sale proceeds under Section 121, and the consequential redemption fine and penalty therefore had no valid legal foundation.

---

---

Issues: Whether export of the goods could be treated as prohibited on the basis of Rule 31 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1997 and whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained when the rule had already been omitted from the statute book.

Analysis: The only foundation for treating the exported goods as prohibited was the alleged violation of Rule 31, coupled with the assertion that the destination country did not permit import of the goods. No specific legal prohibition in the foreign law governing the goods was established, and the case proceeded on assumption rather than proof. In any event, Rule 31 had been omitted from the statute book before the show cause notice was issued. Once the rule stood deleted without a saving clause, proceedings could not be continued on the basis of that omitted provision. The confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscation of sale proceeds under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore lacked a valid legal foundation.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---