https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73922 An attempted export remained within customs control because the goods had not been finally cleared under Section 51 of the Customs Act, so later interception and seizure were within jurisdiction. The evidence supported a finding, on preponderance of probability, that the export contract was fictitious and antedated, and that the declared export value was understated. Contravention of Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, read with Section 67, was treated as attracting Customs Act restrictions, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) and the persons concerned liable to penalty under Section 114. Active involvement in the transaction justified the penalties. en-us Tue, 26 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:54:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73922 An attempted export remained within customs control because the goods had not been finally cleared under Section 51 of the Customs Act, so later interception and seizure were within jurisdiction. The evidence supported a finding, on preponderance of probability, that the export contract was fictitious and antedated, and that the declared export value was understated. Contravention of Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, read with Section 67, was treated as attracting Customs Act restrictions, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) and the persons concerned liable to penalty under Section 114. Active involvement in the transaction justified the penalties. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 26 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73922