Export declaration mismatch does not justify confiscation where goods are neither prohibited nor claimed for drawback.

Export confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act is sustainable only when the statutory conditions are met; a mere mismatch in declared composition does not, by itself, attract confiscation where the goods are neither prohibited nor exported under a claim for drawback. On that reasoning, the proposed confiscation could not be maintained and the penalty also failed. The document states that the appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods exported with a discrepancy in the declared composition were liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The exported goods were not prohibited and were not exported under a claim for drawback. Clause (d) of Section 113 applies to prohibited export goods, while clause (i) applies to dutiable or prohibited goods or goods exported under a claim for drawback. A mismatch in declared composition, by itself, did not bring the goods within those clauses. Confiscation and penalty had therefore to be supported by the statutory conditions for export confiscation.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 113, and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Export confiscation under Section 113 can be sustained only where the statutory conditions are satisfied, and a mere declaration mismatch does not attract confiscation when the goods are neither prohibited nor exported under a claim for drawback.

---