Judgment : The judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI J. - The appellant sold some sugar to certain dealers in Mahe in the assessment year 1957-587 Mahe was then in the French territory. The sugar was transported by ran. The dealers took delivery of the sugar at the Mahe railway station. This station is in the Indian territory. The Sales Tax Officer held that these sales were inter-State sales and levied sales tax on the sales. In appeal the Assistant Commissioner (J.) found that the sales were made in the course of export out of the territory of India and were exempt from sales tax. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, went in revision against the appellate order. The Judge (Revisions) has set aside the appellate order and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer. He is of opinion that the appellant has not proved that the Mahe dealers carried the sugar from the Mahe railway station to Mahe in the French territory. He has given an opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence, regarding transport of the sugar to Mahe, before the Sales Tax Officer. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed a petition in this Court. The petition was heard by brother Pathak agreed with the Judge (Revisions) and dismissed the petition. This appeal is against his judgment. The Judge (Revisions) has found that it is not proved that the sugar was actually carried to the French territory. This finding is not challenged before us. But it is maintained that the law does not require such proof. It is enough to show that there was a contract for sale between the appellant and the Mahe dealers and that in performance of that contract the appellant handed over the sugar to the railway, which is a common carrier, for delivery to the Mahe dealers. It is not possible to accept this argument. We think that in the circumstances of this case it is necessary for the appellant to prove that the sugar was actually taken over from the Mahe railway station to a place inside the French territory. This case is governed directly by section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 5 elucidates the meaning of "in the course of export". This case is governed directly by section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 5 elucidates the meaning of "in the course of export". It provides that "a sale of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale ...... either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India." This is a legislative recognition of the exposition of the phrase "in the course of export" in Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in The State of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [[1952] S.C.R. 1112; 2 S.T.C. 434] and The State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory [[1954] S.C.R. 53; 4 S.T.C. 205] : (see Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer [[1964] 15 S.T.C. 753]. The word "course" suggests a movement of the goods. This movement has a beginning as well as an end : (see Shanmugha Vilas case [[1954] S.C.R. 53 at p. 67; 4 S.T.C. 205 at p. 212] ). Narrowly construed, the movement or "course" begins when the goods cross the customs barrier of India and ends when they enter the customs barrier of the importing country (see Shanmugha Vilas case [[1954] S.C.R. 53 at p. 68; 4 S.T.C. 205 at p. 212]). Broadly construed, the movement or "course" may begin even before the vended goods have crossed the customs barrier of India. When a sale occasions the export of goods out of the territory of India, the course of export begins at a pre- customs barrier stage. It begins from the stage of the agreement of sale with a foreign buyer. [State of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] S.C.R. 1112; 3 S.T.C. 434] In the case of a sale which occasions the export there must be an actual export of the sold goods to a foreign destination. A sale minus the actual export of the sold goods to a foreign destination is not a sale occasioning export : (see The Bombay Co. case, [State of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] S.C.R. 1112; 3 S.T.C. 434]. State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., [[1953] S.C.R. 1069 at p. 1104 per Bose, J; 4 S.T.C. 133 at p. 161]. case, [State of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] S.C.R. 1112; 3 S.T.C. 434]. State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd., [[1953] S.C.R. 1069 at p. 1104 per Bose, J; 4 S.T.C. 133 at p. 161]. Nilgiri Plantations case [[1964] 15 S. T.C. 753] Dulichand v. State of Bihar [A.I.R. 1963 Pat. 359; [1968] 22 S.T.C. 255] Mohan Lal v. Assessing Authority [A.I.R. 1965 391; 16 S.T.C. 553]. Ram Narain v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) [1967 A.L.J. 568; page 401 supra] The expression "such export" in section 5 may mean either the export of goods out of the territory of India or the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India. Whatever be its meaning, it does not benefit the appellant. The sold goods must cross the customs barrier of India, whichever meaning is preferred. Counsel for the appellant tried to make some capital out of certain remarks in the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Bombay Co.[State of Travancore-Cochin v. The Bombay Co. Ltd. [1952] S.C.R. 1112; 3 S.T.C. 434] and Nilgiri Plantations[[1964] 15 S.T.C. 753] cases. In the first case Patanjali Sastri, C.J., said : "Such sales must of necessity be put through by transporting the goods by rail or ship or both out of the territory of India, that is to say by employing the machinery of export. A sale by export thus involves a series of integrated activities commencing from the agreement of sale with a foreign buyer and ending with the delivery of the goods to a common carrier for transport out of the country by land or sea. Such a sale cannot be dissociated from the export without which it cannot be effectuated, and the sale and the resultant export form parts of a single transaction." [1952] S.C.R. 1112 at p. 1118; 3 S.T.C. 434 at p. 438]. It is claimed that according to the intermediate sentence in this passage a seller should show, inter alia, that he has delivered the sold goods to a common carrier for transport and not that the goods were actually exported out of the territory of India. It appears to us that this is a misinterpretation of this sentence. According to this sentence the goods should be delivered to a common carrier "for transport out of the country by land or sea". It appears to us that this is a misinterpretation of this sentence. According to this sentence the goods should be delivered to a common carrier "for transport out of the country by land or sea". Where, as here, goods are delivered to a common carrier for transport to a point inside the territory of India, the observation does not apply. The two expressions underlined by us in the above passage put beyond doubt that there should be actual export out of the territory of India. In The Nilgiri Plantations case [[1964] 15 S.T.C. 753] Shah, J, also laid stress on the actual export out of the territory of India. At page 759 of the report it is pointed out that for a sale in the course of export, common intention of the parties to the sale to export the goods "followed by actual export of the goods to a foreign destination is necessary." A little further, Shah, J., reiterated : "... to constitute a sale in the course of export it may be said that there must be an intention on the part of both the buyer and the seller to export, there must be an obligation to export, and there must be an actual export." Counsel for the appellant seeks to draw support for his argument from a passage in the judgment at page 760 of the report. That passage is as follows : "At the other end is a transaction under a contract of sale with a foreign buyer under which the goods may under the contract be delivered by the seller to a common carrier for transporting them to the purchaser. Such a sale would indisputably be one for export, whether the contract and delivery to the common carrier are effected directly or through agents." When we read this passage in its context, we find that it does not dispense with the requirement of actual export of the vended goods to a foreign destination. The cases of Haji Abdul Gaffoor v. State of Madras [[1958] 9 S.T.C. 208] and Dulichand Hardwari Mull [A.I.R. 1963 Pat. 359; [1968] 22 S.T.C. 255] also do not support the appellant's contention. The cases of Haji Abdul Gaffoor v. State of Madras [[1958] 9 S.T.C. 208] and Dulichand Hardwari Mull [A.I.R. 1963 Pat. 359; [1968] 22 S.T.C. 255] also do not support the appellant's contention. On a consideration of the cases cited before us we are of opinion that the actual export of the sold goods to a foreign destination is an essential element of a sale in the course of export out of the territory of India. Without such export the sale cannot be said to have occasioned the export of the goods out of the territory of India. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which me assess at Rs. 200.