JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1972 is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Poti, J. allowing O.P. No. 2840 of 1971 and quashing an order Ext. P-6 dated 6th July, 1971 passed against the writ petitioner by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin confiscating 150 bales of coir yarn under section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the writ petitioner firm on the ground that they had deliberately attempted to export goods against payment in currency other than the currency in which the payment ought to be received as per the rules governing the subject. The appeal has been filed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The writ petitioner Messrs South Indian Coil Mills is the 1st respondent in the appeal. 2. The parties will be hereinafter referred to with reference to the position that they occupied in the writ petition, the Additional Collector being referred to as the 1st respondent and the petitioner in the writ petition as the writ petitioner. 3. The writ petitioner is a firm dealing in coir yarn and in the course of, its business it has been exporting coir yarn to foreign buyers. The proceedings impugned in the writ petition relate to a transaction of attempted export of 150 bales of coir yarn as per a shipping bill dated 24th March 1971. The facts as found by the learned Single Judge are that although the shipping bill as well as the declaration filed by the writ petitioner lender section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made it appear that the consignee was one Messrs Ferocloktro in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, in truth, the consignment was going to Italy and the purchaser was Messrs Tobia Giecominigia Casimiro and Co., Spresiano, Treviso, Italy. The name of Ferocloktro, Yugoslavia had been mentioned in the contract only for the purpose of giving the transaction the cloak of a sale to a party in Yugoslavia for the purpose of enabling the payment to be made by the buyer, in Indian rupee currency. Though the petitioner counsel made a feeble attempt to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid finding entered by the learned Single Judge we do not see any merit at all in the said argument. Though the petitioner counsel made a feeble attempt to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid finding entered by the learned Single Judge we do not see any merit at all in the said argument. The evidence on record fully supports the said finding. 4. Action was taken against the petitioner under the impugned order Ext. P-6 on the ground that the petitioner had attempted to export goods without complying with the requirements laid down in section 12 (1) of the Act and thereby become liable for penal action under sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act read with section 23A of the Act. Section 12 (1) of the Act as amended by Act 40 of 1969 reads: "(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit the taking or sending out by land, sea or air (hereinafter in this section referred to as export) of all goods or of any goods or class of goods specified in the notification from India directly or indirectly to any place so specified unless the exporter furnishes to the prescribed authority a declaration in the prescribed form supported by such evidence as may be prescribed or so specified and true in all material particulars which, among others, shall include the amount representing (i) the full export value of the goods; or (ii) if the full export value of the goods is not ascertainable at the time of export, the value which the exporter, having regard to, the prevailing market conditions, expects to receive on the sale of the goods in the course of international trade and affirms in the said declaration that the full export value of the goods (whether ascertainable at the time of export or not) has been, or will, within the prescribed period, be paid in the prescribed manner."� Under the aforesaid provision all exporter has to file a declaration containing true particulars relating to the country of destination, the full export value of the goods, etc and affirming that such full export value has been or will, with in the prescribed period, be paid in the prescribed manner. Rule 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 prescribes the manner of payment of the export value of goods. Rule 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 prescribes the manner of payment of the export value of goods. It is laid down therein that the amount representing the full value of goods exported to the countries specified in the Second Schedule to the Rules should be paid through an authorised dealer in the manner specified in the said Schedule. In respect of exports made to "convertible account countries", within which description is included Italy, the approved methods of payment specified in the Second Schedule are (a) currency of any country in sub-group (i) mentioned in the Schedule amongst the "convertible account countries", (b) sterling from an 'external account'�as defined under the U. K. Exchange Control Regulations and (c) rupees from the account of a bank in any country in the convertible account group. 5. Admittedly the method of payment stipulated in the contract entered into by the petitioner does not fall within any of the aforesaid three approved categories since what was provided for was payment in rupee from Yugoslavia which is not one of the countries in the 'convertible account group' mentioned in Schedule II. 6. The writ petitioner did file a declaration in Form G.R. 1 in purported compliance with section 12 (1) of the Act. Ext. P-3 is a copy of the said declaration. An examination of Ext. P-3 reveals that it does not contain any affirmation by the exporter (petitioner) to the effect that the full export value of the goods has been or will, within the prescribed period, be paid in the prescribed manner as is mandatorily required under section 12 (ii) as it now stands by the Amendment Act 40 of 1969. On the contrary, in Ext. P-3 in specifying the method by which payment is to be received in India the petitioner has stated that the payment is to be in Indian rupees. That is not the prescribed manner for receiving payment in respect of goods exported to a convertible account country like Italy. 7. Section 23A of the Act lays down inter alia that restrictions imposed by sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be deemed to have been imposed under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly. 7. Section 23A of the Act lays down inter alia that restrictions imposed by sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be deemed to have been imposed under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly. As a result of the operation of the said section the restriction imposed under section 12 (1) of the Act is to be treated as one of the restrictions imposed under section 11 of the Customs Act for the purposes of proceedings under the Customs Act. 8. The respondent has taken the action under Ext. P-6, under section 113 (d) and 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 12 (1) and section 23A of the Act. Section 113 of the Customs Act in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose is in the following terms: "113. 8. The respondent has taken the action under Ext. P-6, under section 113 (d) and 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 12 (1) and section 23A of the Act. Section 113 of the Customs Act in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose is in the following terms: "113. The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation: * * * * * (d) any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force ; * * * * (i) Any dutiable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 in respect thereof."� We may also read section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is in the following terms: "Any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force, under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater ; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater ; (iii) in the case of goods under claim for drawback, to a penalty not exceeding five times the amount of drawback claimed or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater."� As we have already seen, section 12 (1) of the Act read with the notification issued thereunder prohibits the export from India of any goods or class of goods specified in the said notification directly or indirectly to any place so specified unless the exporter furnishes to the prescribed authority a declaration complying with the requirements specified in the said sub-section. It is not contended before us that 'coir yarn' is not amongst the goods specified in the notification under the said sub-section or that Italy is not one of the places mentioned in the said notification. Reference has already been made by us to the fact that the declaration Ext. P-3 filed by the petitioner was not in accordance with the requirements specified in section 12 (1) of the Act since it did not contain an affirmation as required by the last portion of the said sub-section. It is on the said ground and on the further grounds that the method by which payment is to be received as entered in the declaration was not the mode prescribed by rule 7 read with Schedule II of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules that the Additional Collector of Customs held that the petitioner had misdeclared the material particulars and attempted to export the goods in question in contravention of the prohibition contained in section 12 (1) of the Act. That the goods had been attempted to be exported and actually brought within the limits of the customs area in the Port of Cochin for the purpose of being exported is not denied on behalf of the petitioner. The question is whether under such circumstances the view taken by the Additional Collector that there has been a contravention of section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act read with section 12(1) and section 23-A of the Act can be said to be either erroneous or illegal. 9. Even though Poti, J. found that the goods were really intended to be exported to Italy and that the mode of receiving payment mentioned in the declaration was not the prescribed manner of payment of export value applicable to the case, nevertheless the learned Judge held that there was no case for action under section 113 or 114 of the Customs Act since there had not been an actual contravention of section 12 (1) of the Act. It is true that in order to constitute a completed offence of contravention of section 12 (1) of the Act there must have been an export of goods in violation of the prohibition contained in the said sub-section. It is true that in order to constitute a completed offence of contravention of section 12 (1) of the Act there must have been an export of goods in violation of the prohibition contained in the said sub-section. In this case the goods in question were not actually exported because the Customs Authorities detected the irregularity in times and hence it is strictly correct to say that a contravention of section 12 (1) had not taken place. But, for the purpose of attracting section 113 (d) of the Customs Act all that is necessary is that the goods should have been attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being force. Since under section 23-A of the Act, the prohibition imposed by section 12(1) has to be treated as one imposed by section 11 of the Customs Act an attempt to export the goods in contravention of the prohibition laid down in section 12 (1) of the Act will clearly attract the liability for confiscation provided under section 113 (d) of the Customs Act. It is indisputable on the facts of this case that there had been an attempt by the petitioner to export the goods in question in contravention of section 12(1) of the Act. That the attempt did not finally succeed is a matter of no moment at all so far as culpability under section 113 (d) is concerned. For the purposes of the said section it is not necessary that there should have been the commission of a completed offence of export of goods in violation of section 12 (1) of the Act; an attempt to effect such an export is punishable under the section. With respect, we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that the provisions of section 113 (d) of the Customs Act were not attracted in this case. We hold that the petitioner goods were liable for confiscation, under section 113 (d) and that the action taken in that regard by the Additional Collector of Customs was perfectly valid and legal. 10. We hold that the petitioner goods were liable for confiscation, under section 113 (d) and that the action taken in that regard by the Additional Collector of Customs was perfectly valid and legal. 10. When once the conclusion is reached that the goods were liable to confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act the provisions of section 114 thereof are also automatically attracted because that section lays down that any person who has done any act in relation to any goods which has rendered such goods liable to confiscation under section 113 shall be liable to be inflicted a penalty in the manner and extent laid down in the said section. Accordingly we hold that the Additional Collector of Customs was right in holding that the petitioner had rendered himself liable for being proceeded under sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act and that there is no ground for interference by this Court with the action taken against the petitioner as per the order Ext. P-6. 11. In the result, we allow the writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Original Petition with costs throughout. 12. These cases were heard along with Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1972 since they raised the same question as is involved in the writ appeal. The petitioner in these writ petitions is engaged in the business of export of sea-foods. In respect of two consignments of canned shrimps which the petitioner attempted to export from India, the name of the consignee was shown in the shipping bills as a party in Bulgaria, though in truth, the contracts of sale were with a purchaser in Hamburg in West Germany resort having been taken to the said camouflage with a view to enable the payment to be made by the purchaser in rupee currency instead of in the manner laid down in rule 7 read with Schedule II in respect of goods exported to West Germany. In these cases also the declaration filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Act did not contain a proper affirmation as is required by the last part of the section and the mode of payment of the purchase price was specified otherwise than in accordance with the manner prescribed by rule 7. In these cases also the declaration filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Act did not contain a proper affirmation as is required by the last part of the section and the mode of payment of the purchase price was specified otherwise than in accordance with the manner prescribed by rule 7. Action was accordingly taken against the petitioner for the imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act on the ground that the goods had been attempted to be exported in violation of the prohibition contained in section 12 (1) of the Act. In the light of the views that we have expressed while dealing with Writ Appeal No. 142 of 1972 it must follow that the conclusion reached by the Collector of Customs that the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against under section 114 of the Customs Act is perfectly correct. The Original Petitions are therefore devoid of merits and will stand dismissed with costs.