Pre-export undervaluation in export declarations justified confiscation and penalty under foreign exchange law.

Deliberate undervaluation in shipping bills and G.R.-I forms, detected before export was completed, was treated as a contravention of export-declaration requirements. The reasoning distinguished earlier authorities on post-export defaults and minor inaccuracies because those cases involved completed exports and repatriation issues, whereas this case involved a pre-export attempt to suppress the true value and route profit through the export transaction. On that basis, the customs authorities were justified in invoking the penal and confiscatory provisions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found, the undervaluation declared in the shipping bills and G.R.-I forms amounted to a contravention of the export-declaration requirements and justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The declared export value was deliberately fixed below the then market value, and this was detected before the goods were actually exported. The Court held that the earlier decisions concerning post-export defaults and repatriation of foreign exchange did not apply, because those cases dealt with completed exports and minor inaccuracies in declaration. Here, the facts showed an attempted device to channel profit through the export transaction by suppressing the full export value, and the Customs authorities were therefore justified in treating the act as a violation of Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, attracting the penal and confiscatory provisions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation and personal penalty failed, and the decision in favour of the revenue was sustained.

---