Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Full Bench stated the law in these words:

We have earlier set out the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act which confers power on the Central Government to prohibit importation or exportation of goods for purposes mentioned there is These purposes indeed cover very very wide fields. Some of the purposes for which the prohibition may be imposed as stated in Section 11(2) are, prevention of smuggling, prevention of shortage of goods of any description and prevention of the contravention of any law for the time being in force. Section 113 provides for liability of the goods to confiscation in case of any violation of the prohibition imposed under Section 11 of the Act and Section 114 provides for personal penalty for those whose acts or omissions render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113. To construe the said sections to mean that Section 114 can only be attracted when the goods are attempted to be exported and will have no application when goods have in fact been exported will defeat the purpose and object for which the said provisions have been introduced. The submissions that the legislature has so intended by using the words "attempt to export" in Section 113(a), (b) and (d) and the analogy of the offence of attempt to commit suicide given in this connection are, in our opinion, misleading and devoid of merit. An attempt to commit suicide is indeed an offence and the act of committing suicide resulting from the successful attempt may not be considered to be an offence. This is so far the simple reason that once a person attempting to commit suicide succeeds in his attempt he places himself beyond the reach of law and no punishment is intended to be inflicted on the dead person or his heirs and legal representatives by imposing any fine or penalty, as they may in no way be liable or responsible for the said act. As we have earlier observed, the liability of the goods to confiscation arises under See". 113(d), as soon as the goods are attempted to be exported and the attempt to export the goods necessarily proceeds the actual export of the goods. Goods become liable to confiscation as soon as the attempt is made. There is no provision in the Act to suggest that this accrued liability is wiped out or extinguished with the exportation of the goods. It maybe that after the goods had in fact been exported the liability of the goods to be confiscated may not be enforceable by actual confiscation of the goods. Personal penalty of any person who, in relation to the goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 or abets the doing or omission of such an act has been provided in Section 114. This provision is attracted as soon as the goods incur the liability to confiscation under Section 13 and such liability, as we have earlier held, arises when the goods are attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition. It is to be noted that at the time when the goods are sought to be exported they are undoubtedly 'export goods' within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Customs Act. The liability of personal penalty provided in Section 114 of the Act, which arises with the accrual of the liability of the goods to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act at the stage of the attempt to export the said goods, clearly remains and the said liability is capable of enforcement. In the case of illegal export of any goods contrary to prohibition the effect may be that the liability of the goods to confiscation which arises and accrues may not be capable of enforcement but the personal liability which arises with the accrual of liability of the goods to confiscation can be enforced and by enforcement of the personal liability the offender can still be brought to book and this kind of offence may be checked. We must, therefore hold that by virtue of Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are attracted, when there is a contravention of Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in relation to goods which had in fact been exported....
Confiscation is an act of appropriation of private property for State or Sovereign use and usually been the result of the doing by the owner of some prohibited act. The seizure and appropriation of property as a punishment for breach of the law whether municipal or international was held to be confiscation.
There are other authorities also who have taken then view, however, like the Calcutta Court, that a confiscation proceeding shall not be controlled by a provision like one under Section 47 or Section 51 of the Act and that it would be incorrect to say that for initiating a confiscation proceeding, it would be necessary to find out whether the goods have been duly cleared by the Customs or not. Such a view has been expressed by a Special Bench of the Customs Tribunal in the case of N. Devidas and Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1987) E.L.T. 247, and by the North Regional Bench of the Customs Tribunal in the case of R.K. Industries v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise . They have stated in no uncertain words that clearance under Section 47 of the Act cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to confiscate goods under Section 11 of the Act, if later on it is found that the conditions, subject to which the goods were permitted to be imported were not fulfilled or complied with. Consensus of judicial opinion thus is : (1) that an order for clearance of the goods for home consumption is a quasi-judicial order and some sort of finality has to be attached to it. Ordinarily, no action to confiscate such goods which are cleared for home consumption-will be taken but there may be exceptions to it, such as those indicated in the Delhi Court judgment in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and (2) that an action to confiscate goods does not depend on clearance of the goods for him consumption or export, but on conditions enumerated under Section 111 of the Act in so far as improperly imported goods are concerned and Section 113 of the Act in so far as goods attempted to be improperly exported are concerned. As in the case of goods already exported, it cannot be said that there was no attempt to improperly export, with respect to goods already cleared for home consumption also, it will not be possible to say that they have not been improperly imported.