Clear prohibition and product identity are essential before confiscation and penalty for allegedly prohibited exports

Confiscation and penalty under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act require a clear allegation that the export was contrary to a specific prohibition and a reliable identification of the goods. Where the notice did not clearly specify the prohibited law said to be breached, and the record left uncertainty whether the goods were a drug, cosmetic, or drug intermediate, the basis for confiscation and penalty was not adequately established. Unresolved technical questions, including the effect of inorganic silicates on the product's identity, required fuller examination. The confiscation and penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained when the notice did not clearly specify the prohibition allegedly contravened and the identity of the export goods remained uncertain.

Analysis: Liability under Section 113(d) depends on a specific allegation that the export was contrary to a particular prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law. The notice did not clearly state the legal basis of the alleged contravention, and the record did not definitively establish whether the declared substance was a drug, a cosmetic, or a drug intermediate. The reports also left unresolved whether the presence of inorganic silicates altered the identity or character of the product. In these circumstances, the foundation for confiscation and penalty was not adequately established, and the factual and technical aspects required fuller examination.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

---