Export declaration mismatch did not make goods prohibited; confiscation and penalty were not sustainable under customs law.

Goods exported with the prescribed declaration were not treated as prohibited goods merely because of an alleged mismatch in description and sample analysis. The repealed Export (Control) Order could not support confiscation when the shipping bills were filed, and compliance with the declaration requirement under foreign exchange law did not by itself make the goods prohibited for customs purposes. On that footing, confiscation under the Customs Act was not attracted and no penalty could be sustained on the same basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exported goods, on account of mismatch in declaration and sample analysis, were liable to be treated as prohibited goods and confiscated under the Customs Act, and whether the exporter was liable to penalty.

Analysis: The declaration requirement under the customs export regime was examined together with the effect of the Export (Control) Order and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Since the Export (Control) Order had already been repealed when the shipping bills were filed, it could not support confiscation. The Court further applied the principle that a declaration under the foreign exchange law concerns the furnishing of the prescribed declaration, and once that stage is satisfied, the matter of compliance with other enforcement requirements does not make the goods prohibited for customs purposes. On that footing, goods exported with a declaration under the relevant notification were not to be treated as prohibited goods under the Customs Act merely because of the alleged inaccuracy in description.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the exporter was not liable to penalty on that basis.

---