Declaration requirement for foreign currency exports by post upheld; undeclared currency treated as prohibited goods and liable to confiscation.

Foreign currency exported by post through authorised dealers was held subject to the declaration requirement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the 1 January 1974 notification. The expression "goods" was treated as including currency for customs purposes, and the notification was read as applying to postal exports without limiting it to remittances receivable in India. Non-furnishing of the prescribed declaration brought the export within the prohibited goods framework, so confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were upheld, although the fine and penalty were reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether foreign currency sent abroad by post by authorised dealers was subject to the declaration requirement under Section 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the notification dated 1-1-1974, and whether non-compliance rendered the currency liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 18(1) prohibits export of goods unless the prescribed declaration is furnished, and the expression "goods" was held to include currency for the purposes of the customs law. The notification issued under Section 18(1) applied to export by post of all goods, and nothing in its language limited it to transactions involving remittances being received back in India. Sections 13 and 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were held not to be mutually exclusive, and the absence of the required declaration meant that the export offended the statutory scheme. In that situation, the currency was treated as prohibited goods, attracting confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the relevant notification.

Conclusion: The declaration requirement applied and the currency was liable to confiscation and penalty. The challenge to the confiscatory finding failed, though the fine and penalty were reduced.

---