Export declaration defects and immaterial shipping bill misdescription do not justify customs confiscation or writ bar where jurisdiction is absent.

A breach of the prescribed export declaration form under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 did not, by itself, amount to contravention of section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, because the statutory restriction then required a declaration supported by prescribed evidence, not strict compliance with every prescribed formality. Misdescription in the shipping bill likewise did not justify confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 where the goods had already suffered duty, were not prohibited goods, and the alleged discrepancies were not material particulars of export goods. A writ under Article 226 remained maintainable against a jurisdictionally invalid show cause notice, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether alleged non-compliance with the prescribed export declaration form under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 attracted action by the customs authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947; (ii) whether the alleged misdescription in the shipping bill rendered the goods liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue (i): whether alleged non-compliance with the prescribed export declaration form under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 attracted action by the customs authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

Analysis: Before its amendment in 1969, section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 required furnishing of a declaration supported by prescribed evidence, but did not require the declaration to be in any prescribed form or to contain correct particulars in every respect. The prescribed forms were created by the rules made under the Act. A breach of the rules or of the form prescribed under the rules could attract action under the Act in appropriate cases, but it did not amount, by itself, to a breach of the restriction imposed by section 12(1). The customs authorities could act only where there was contravention of the statutory restriction itself.

Conclusion: The alleged defect in the form of declaration did not justify action by the customs authorities under section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged misdescription in the shipping bill rendered the goods liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Liability under section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 arises only if export goods are dutiable or prohibited and do not correspond in any material particulars with the entry made under the Act. The goods had already suffered duty and had been exported; they were therefore not dutiable goods. Once the only export condition under section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was complied with, they were not prohibited goods for the purposes of the Customs Act. The alleged discrepancies as to destination, exporter and port of discharge were not material particulars of the goods. The goods had already been exported and could not be treated as export goods within the meaning of section 2(12) for the purpose of the impugned proceedings. On those facts, proceedings under sections 113(d), 113(i) and 114 could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 on the facts alleged in the show cause notice.

Issue (iii): whether the writ petition was barred by availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: Where the impugned show cause notice and the proposed proceeding are without jurisdiction on undisputed facts, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An invalid proceeding does not become valid merely because it was allowed to continue by an interim order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent interference.

Final Conclusion: The show cause notice and all proceedings taken pursuant to it were quashed, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs proceeding based only on breach of the prescribed form or on misdescription that does not amount to contravention of the statutory prohibition, and that concerns goods not liable to be treated as dutiable, prohibited, or materially misdescribed export goods, is without jurisdiction and may be quashed in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---