TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ court could interfere with the customs authority's finding that the export consignment was under-invoiced and that the declared export value was not the full export value; (ii) whether, on the amended foreign exchange law, a declaration containing untrue particulars as to export value attracted liability under the export-control provisions and the customs penal provisions.
Issue (i): whether the writ court could interfere with the customs authority's finding that the export consignment was under-invoiced and that the declared export value was not the full export value
Analysis: The factual determination of export value was based on materials placed before the adjudicating authority, including the telegram and the shipping documents. The writ court does not sit in appeal over such findings and cannot reappraise evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is confined to jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, perversity, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The finding in question was at most a factual or mixed question of fact and law, supported by material, and did not disclose any such infirmity.
Conclusion: The finding of under-invoicing and the acceptance of the buyer's quoted price as the export value were not liable to be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): whether, on the amended foreign exchange law, a declaration containing untrue particulars as to export value attracted liability under the export-control provisions and the customs penal provisions
Analysis: The earlier position under section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was distinguished on the ground that the pre-amendment provision did not require the declaration to be true in all material particulars. The later statutory scheme under section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 required a declaration true in all material particulars, including the full export value or the value expected in the overseas market. On the finding that the declaration was not true and correct because the goods were under-invoiced, the statutory prohibition was attracted and, by operation of the deeming provision, the export-control restriction under the Customs Act also applied. The plea of bona fide was held immaterial once the declaration was found to be untrue in material particulars.
Conclusion: The declaration was held to be in breach of section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the goods were liable to confiscation and penal consequences under the Customs Act.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order failed, and the writ application was dismissed because the customs authority's factual finding stood and the amended foreign exchange regime treated an untrue export declaration as a statutory breach.
Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, a factual finding on export valuation will not be reappraised absent jurisdictional error or perversity, and under the amended foreign exchange law a declaration that is not true in all material particulars as to export value constitutes a statutory breach attracting customs consequences.
TaxTMI 
