Customs prohibition offences extend beyond dutiable goods where statutory export restrictions are fraudulently evaded.

Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was interpreted as containing separate and independent limbs: the duty-evasion limb applies to goods chargeable to duty, while the prohibition limbs cover fraudulent evasion or attempted evasion of prohibitions under the Customs Act or any other law without requiring the goods to be dutiable. The phrase "with respect to such goods" was held to refer back to "any goods" and not to confine the prohibition limb. On the stated facts, export of silver without a licence breached the export control prohibition, and the persons concerned were covered by the provision; the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "with respect to such goods" in Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 confines the offence to goods chargeable to duty, or whether it also covers fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of a prohibition imposed under any other law in relation to any goods.

Analysis: The provision was analysed as comprising distinct and independent parts. The first part covers evasion of duty on goods chargeable to duty. The second and third parts cover fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of prohibitions imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law, and are not conditioned on the goods being dutiable. The words "with respect to such goods" were held to refer back to "any goods" and not to qualify the class of goods in the duty-related part alone. On the facts, export of silver without a licence was prohibited under the Export Trade Control Order, 1968 issued under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the accused were knowingly concerned in evasion of that prohibition.

Conclusion: The expression "with respect to such goods" does not confine the prohibition limb of Section 135(1)(a)(ii) to dutiable goods. The accused were covered by that provision and their conviction was rightly restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the acquittal was reversed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, the prohibition limbs operate independently of the duty limb, so fraudulent evasion of a statutory export prohibition is punishable even where no duty is chargeable on the goods.

---