Export value misdeclaration can trigger confiscation and penalties where inflated invoices and knowing participation are established.

False declaration of FOB and present market value in export shipping bills under the DEPB framework was treated as a statutory breach attracting confiscation, because inflated valuation and non-compliance with export conditions brought the goods within the mischief of prohibited goods. Board circulars did not prevent investigation or confiscation where fraud and misdeclaration were established, so the confiscation was upheld. Separate penalties were sustained against persons who knowingly participated in, facilitated, or abetted the overvaluation and export arrangement, including by altering values, issuing inflated invoices, or assisting the shipment with knowledge of the misdeclaration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether misdeclaration of FOB value and present market value in export shipping bills under the DEPB scheme rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable on persons found to have participated in or abetted the overvaluation and export of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether misdeclaration of FOB value and present market value in export shipping bills under the DEPB scheme rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The declared present market value was not accepted on the basis of contemporaneous inquiries, statements, invoices, and test reports, and the export declarations were found to be inflated. The legal effect of non-compliance with export valuation requirements was examined with reference to the definition of prohibited goods and the export conditions under the Customs Act and the foreign trade framework. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that goods exported in breach of statutory and regulatory conditions, including truthful declaration of value, fall within the mischief of prohibited goods and may be confiscated. The Board circulars relied upon by the appellants were held not to bar investigation by the enforcement agency or confiscation where fraud and misdeclaration were established.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation and the confiscation was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable on persons found to have participated in or abetted the overvaluation and export of the goods.

Analysis: The evidence showed active involvement in the overvaluation and export arrangement, including instruction to alter the market value, issuance of inflated invoices, and assistance in export despite knowledge of the over-invoicing. On that factual basis, personal liability for penal action was held to arise for the exporter, the supplier who facilitated the inflated documentation, and the intermediary who knowingly assisted the export process.

Conclusion: Penalties were rightly imposed and were upheld, against the persons penalised.

Final Conclusion: The misdeclaration of export value was treated as a statutory violation attracting confiscation and penal consequences, and the common appeals failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export goods are shipped with a false declaration of value in breach of the statutory export conditions, the goods may be treated as prohibited goods and confiscated, and persons who knowingly participate in or facilitate the misdeclaration are liable to penalty.

---