Confiscation for misdeclaration fails where export is not legally prohibited and proper notice is absent.

Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act requires both valid notice and an attempted export that is contrary to a legal prohibition. Where no written notice was issued for confiscation on the misdeclaration basis, the earlier waiver of notice did not cover the new ground later adopted. On the merits, the goods were held to fall within an exception to the export restriction, subject only to compliance with a procedural condition, so the export was not prohibited. Misdescription in the shipping bill alone did not justify confiscation, and the penalty also failed once confiscation was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of misdeclaration and alleged contravention of export restrictions.

Analysis: The order of confiscation could not be sustained because no written notice had been issued for confiscation on the ground of misdeclaration and the earlier waiver of notice did not extend to the new basis adopted in the impugned proceedings. On merits also, goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) only when attempted export is contrary to a prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law. Here, the goods were held to fall within the exception to the export prohibition, subject only to compliance with a procedural condition. In that situation, even if the description on the shipping bill was initially wrong, the export itself was not prohibited and confiscation could not follow. Once confiscation failed, the penalty also could not survive.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was vacated, with consequential relief to follow.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires both lawful notice and an attempted export contrary to a legal prohibition; misdescription alone does not justify confiscation or penalty where the export is otherwise permissible.

---