GORDHANDAS JERAMBHAI Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner challenges three notices dated the 25th October, 1967 issued on petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Export Department, Customs House, Calcutta, asking the petitioner to show cause why certain bales of Hessian and Tarpaulin cloth meant for export to Czechoslovakia should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The substance of the allegations in the notice to show cause is that the petitioner had in the declaration filed under the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) shown as the destination of the goods various countries in Eastern Europe where the goods to be exported were, in fact, meant for different countries in Western Europe. It is alleged that the petitioner has thereby contravened the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act read with Sections 23-A and 23-B thereof.

(2.) Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s, Sreeram Durgaprosad (P) Ltd. in which the majority judgment was delivered by Hegde, J. on behalf of the Supreme Court on 19.11.1968. It was held in that case that the submission of a declaration in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act was sufficient compliance with the provisions thereof. If there are incorrect particulars with regard to the full export value of the goods or other details as shown in the declaration, the exporter might be liable for action under other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. But if, in fact, the declaration has been submitted, it cannot be held that there has been any contravention of S. 12(1) of the Act. It was held in that case, on an interpretation of the scheme of the Act that, in so far as the Customs authorities are concerned, all they have to see is that no goods are exported without furnishing the declaration prescribed in Section 12(1) of the Act. Once that stage is passed, the rest of the matter is left in the hands of the Reserve Bank and the Director of Enforcement.

(3.) Admittedly, a declaration under Section 12(1) of the Act has been submitted in the present case. In the circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner cannot be charged with any violation of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act.