Export compliance may require source and transport documents where customs law operates alongside mining and foreign trade regulations.

Customs authorities may require transport permits, bulk permits and proof of lawful source before permitting export of beach sand minerals where statutory compliance under the wider export-control and mining regime is involved. The expression "any other law" in the Customs Act, 1962 is not confined to customs legislation alone, and the prohibition framework under Section 11H can operate alongside other prohibitory laws in force. The mineral-mining statutes and rules governing extraction, storage and transport formed part of the relevant legal regime, and the Foreign Trade Policy permitted additional documentation for compliance purposes. The communications seeking source documents were therefore within jurisdiction and not a blanket prohibition on export.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs authorities could insist on production of transport permits, bulk permits, or proof of legal source before allowing export of beach sand minerals, and whether the impugned communications were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the scope of the Customs Act, 1962, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. The Court held that the expression "any other law" in Section 2(33) and the prohibition framework under Section 11H of the Customs Act, 1962 are not confined to Customs law alone, but extend to other prohibitory laws in force. It accepted that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011 form part of the legal regime governing mining, storage, and transport of the minerals and therefore can legitimately bear upon export compliance. The Court also noted that the Foreign Trade Policy permits regulatory authorities to require additional documents where statutory compliance is involved, and that the Customs authorities were only seeking proof of source, not prohibiting export of garnet as such.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities were entitled to seek the documents demanded in Exts. P2 and P3, and the challenge to those communications failed.

---