Foreign exchange declaration requirements: prescribed particulars do not enlarge the statutory restriction, and valuation inaccuracy alone is not enough.

Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act required only the statutory declaration that the full export value had been or would be received in the prescribed manner; the prescribed forms and supporting particulars were treated as compliance machinery, not as additional restrictions. A deliberately false declaration was, by the majority, not treated as a contravention attracting section 23A of the Act or section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, because section 12(1) was not read as converting valuation inaccuracies into a customs offence. The dissent considered a fraudulent declaration sufficient to breach the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restrictions imposed by section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as deemed under section 23A, include the particulars required in the prescribed declaration and the rules made thereunder; and (ii) whether a deliberately false declaration as to full export value constitutes a contravention of section 12(1) attracting section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

Issue (i): Whether the restrictions imposed by section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as deemed under section 23A, include the particulars required in the prescribed declaration and the rules made thereunder.

Analysis: Section 12(1) was read as imposing only the requirement that the exporter furnish the prescribed declaration supported by the prescribed evidence stating that the amount representing the full export value has been or will be paid in the prescribed manner. The prescribed forms and evidentiary requirements under the Rules were treated as machinery for compliance and not as additional restrictions added to section 12(1). The customs authorities were therefore concerned only with whether the statutory declaration had been furnished, while valuation and repatriation issues were left to the Reserve Bank and enforcement machinery under other provisions.

Conclusion: The prescribed particulars beyond the statutory declaration were not part of the restrictions imposed by section 12(1).

Issue (ii): Whether a deliberately false declaration as to full export value constitutes a contravention of section 12(1) attracting section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

Analysis: The majority held that section 12(1) requires a declaration made in good faith, but it does not require absolute accuracy in every valuation entry so as to convert every under-valuation into a customs offence under section 23A. Deliberate falsehood and bona fide clerical or immaterial errors were distinguished, and the Court declined to treat a false declaration as making the export one without a declaration for the purpose of section 167(8). The dissenting view held that a fraudulent declaration would defeat the statutory requirement and fall within the combined effect of section 12(1), section 23A and section 167(8).

Conclusion: A deliberately false declaration was not treated, by the majority, as a contravention attracting section 23A and section 167(8).

Final Conclusion: The appeal was finally disposed of by dismissal, and the respondents' challenge to the show-cause proceedings succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of section 23A, only the statutory restriction in section 12(1) itself is relevant; prescribed forms and evidentiary particulars do not enlarge that restriction, and section 12(1) is not violated merely because the export value declared is inaccurate, unless the statutory declaration requirement itself is not met.

---