Export confiscation liability survives actual shipment, and penalty remains sustainable for prohibited export attempts and misdeclaration.

Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked where export goods were attempted to be exported in violation of law, even if the goods had already crossed customs frontiers; actual export does not erase the liability to confiscation, though it may affect physical seizure. Penalty under Section 114 is likewise sustainable because personal liability follows once the goods become liable to confiscation under Section 113 or the contravention is abetted. Misdeclaration in export documents and breach of export restrictions supported the penal action, and the Tribunal's view was rejected while the departmental action was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked for confiscation of goods already exported; (ii) whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be sustained where the goods are already exported.

Issue (i): whether Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked for confiscation of goods already exported?

Analysis: The liability to confiscation under Section 113 arises when export goods are attempted to be exported contrary to law. Actual export after the attempt does not extinguish that liability. The Court accepted the reasoning that the statutory scheme does not confine Section 113 only to goods physically intercepted before export, and the fact that the goods are no longer available for seizure may affect actual confiscation, not the attachment of liability.

Conclusion: Yes. Section 113 can be attracted even where the prohibited export attempt has culminated in actual export.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be sustained where the goods are already exported?

Analysis: Section 114 provides for personal penalty on a person whose act or omission renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 or abets such conduct. Once the goods incur liability under Section 113 on account of an attempted prohibited export, the corresponding personal penalty remains enforceable notwithstanding the completion of export. The misdeclaration in export documents and the contravention of the export restrictions justified penal action.

Conclusion: Yes. Penalty under Section 114 is sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was rejected, the departmental action was upheld, and the Revenue succeeded on both questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability to confiscation under Section 113 and personal penalty under Section 114 arise when export goods are attempted to be exported in violation of law, and such liability is not defeated merely because the goods have already crossed customs frontiers.

---