Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether shortage in weight of export goods attracts clause 3(3) of the Export Trade (Control) Order, 1988 so as to render the goods prohibited and liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Clause 3(3) of the Export Trade (Control) Order refers to value, sort, specification, quality and description of the goods, but does not refer to weight or to a broader requirement that the goods must correspond in any material particular. The words used in the later amended form of the Customs Act could not be imported into the unamended provision or into clause 3(3) by interpretation. Penal and confiscatory provisions must be strictly construed, and the absence of any express reference to weight in the controlling order meant that shortage in weight alone could not make the export prohibited. The later amendment to Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not operate retrospectively for exports made earlier.
Conclusion: Shortage in weight did not attract clause 3(3) of the Export Trade (Control) Order, 1988, and the export goods were not liable to confiscation or penalty. The answer is in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A confiscatory or penal export prohibition cannot be extended by implication to cover shortage in weight where the governing provision does not expressly include weight or a material-particulars standard, and later-amended customs provisions cannot be applied retrospectively.