Permissible export route and no proven ban barred confiscation and penalties for bird exports through Barhni.

Export of birds to Nepal through the Barhni land route, a notified permissible route, could not justify confiscation of the goods or trucks or the imposition of penalties in the absence of any notification, order, or circular prohibiting such export. The record disclosed no governmental ban on exporting ducks and titars through that route, and the assumption of Customs violation was therefore unsupported. On that footing, the confiscation and penalty orders were set aside, and relief was granted to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the birds and trucks, and the penalties imposed, were sustainable when no notification, order, or circular prohibited export of the goods through the Barhni route, which was a permissible land route.

Analysis: The goods were sought to be exported to Nepal through Barhni, a route recognized as permissible for import and export under Notification No. 63/94 dated 21-11-1994. No material was produced to show any governmental ban or prohibition on export of ducks and titars through that route. In the absence of any such prohibition, the assumption that the appellants had violated the Customs law could not support confiscation of the goods or the trucks. The same defect affected the penalties imposed on all the appellants.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the appellants obtained relief against confiscation and penalty orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export is attempted through a notified permissible route and no valid governmental prohibition on such export is shown, confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained.

---