2001 (12) TMI 709 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "any prohibition" in Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act.
2. Consideration of provisions of various Acts as restrictions imposed by law.
3. Determination of liability for confiscation of goods due to export contrary to restrictions.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this case revolves around interpreting the term "any prohibition" in Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act. The Revenue argued that any restriction on import or export can be considered a prohibition to some extent. They contended that mis-declaration of net weight of export goods falls under the restriction imposed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The mis-declaration was seen as a corrupt practice to obtain undue benefits, making the export contrary to the prohibition imposed by these Acts.

Issue 2: The Revenue further argued that the stipulation in Sec. 50(2) of the Customs Act, requiring truthful declaration of shipping bill contents, should be deemed a restriction. Any export contrary to this requirement would render the goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 113(d) of the Act. The contention was that these provisions should be considered as restrictions imposed under the relevant laws.

Issue 3: The Tribunal had initially set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed under Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act for mis-declaration of weight by an exporter. The Tribunal held that non-mentioning of the correct weight did not make the goods prohibited from being exported. However, the Revenue sought a reference to the High Court to clarify whether export contrary to these restrictions should be treated as export contrary to prohibition, thus attracting liability for confiscation under Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the reference application to the High Court to seek clarification on the interpretation of the term "any prohibition" in Sec. 113(d) of the Customs Act, the consideration of various Acts' provisions as restrictions, and the liability for confiscation due to export contrary to these restrictions. The case highlights the importance of accurately interpreting legal terms and provisions to determine the consequences of non-compliance with export regulations.