Valid export certificate protects goods from confiscation unless a post-examination unlawful export attempt or false declaration is shown.

Goods covered by a valid export quality control certificate could not be confiscated or penalised merely because they were later found not to be export-worthy, where there was no false declaration, fraud, or attempt to export after that later finding. The certificate satisfied the statutory requirement for export under the relevant quality control notification until displaced by subsequent examination. Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act and penalty under Section 114 require an attempt to export contrary to law or a culpable contravention by the exporter; on the facts, the goods were cleared from the Wharf on bond after examination and no such post-examination attempt was made. The notices and orders were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods covered by a valid quality control certificate could be confiscated and penalised on the footing that they were later found to be not export-worthy, in the absence of any attempt to export after that finding or any allegation of a false declaration by the exporter.

Analysis: The goods had reached the Customs Wharf under a valid certificate issued by the competent export inspection agency, and there was no allegation of misrepresentation, fraud, or a false declaration by the exporter. The notification issued under Section 6 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 prohibited export of notified goods unless accompanied by the requisite certificate, and the certificate in hand satisfied that requirement until it was displaced by a later examination. The confiscation order rested on Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalty on Section 114 of that Act, but those provisions could apply only if there had been an attempt to export goods contrary to law or a culpable contravention on the exporter's part. On the facts found, no such attempt was made after the later examination, and the goods were cleared from the Wharf after execution of bond. The provisions relating to declarations under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the related control order were not invoked on the facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned notices and orders were set aside.

---