https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291309 A breach of the prescribed export declaration form under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 did not, by itself, amount to contravention of section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, because the statutory restriction then required a declaration supported by prescribed evidence, not strict compliance with every prescribed formality. Misdescription in the shipping bill likewise did not justify confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 where the goods had already suffered duty, were not prohibited goods, and the alleged discrepancies were not material particulars of export goods. A writ under Article 226 remained maintainable against a jurisdictionally invalid show cause notice, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar interference. en-us Thu, 04 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2020 13:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291309 A breach of the prescribed export declaration form under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 did not, by itself, amount to contravention of section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, because the statutory restriction then required a declaration supported by prescribed evidence, not strict compliance with every prescribed formality. Misdescription in the shipping bill likewise did not justify confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 where the goods had already suffered duty, were not prohibited goods, and the alleged discrepancies were not material particulars of export goods. A writ under Article 226 remained maintainable against a jurisdictionally invalid show cause notice, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar interference. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291309