Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm of exporters of frozen shrimps (hereinafter referred to as 'exporters'). Ext. PI notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin (4th respondent) calling upon the exporters to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them for contravention of the Notification (No. SO. 771 dated 6 31965 (as amended)) issued under S.6 of the Export (Quality Control & Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Quality Control Act'), why their goods should not be confiscated under S.113(d) and 118(b) of the Customs Act 1962; and why penalty under S.114 of the Customs Act should not be imposed upon them. Ext. P2 reply was sent by the exporters; but their explanation was rejected by Ext. P3 order of the Collector of Customs (the 3rd respondent herein). The Collector held that the prohibition contained in the notification issued under S.6 of the Quality Control Act was violated and that the goods were therefore liable to be confiscated. He however gave the exporters an option to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The Collector further imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the exporters under S.114 of the Customs Act. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by Ext. P6 order confirmed the confiscation, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 20000/- to Rs. 10000/-. A revision filed before the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), was dismissed by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P3, P6 and P8. 2. Certain facts are not controverted. The goods in question were brought to the Customs wharf under a valid certificate issued by the Export Promotion Agency (hereafter called the 'Agency'; which is the competent authority under the Quality Control Act. There is no case that the certificate was issued on any misrepresentation or that any fraud had been committed by the exporters. There is also no case that the exporters made any wrong declaration or that they knowingly brought damaged goods to the Customs wharf. 3. At the wharf the Customs authorities noticed defect in the goods. The Agency was therefore called upon to conduct a fresh examination. The Agency found that the goods were not exportworthy. There is also no case that the exporters made any wrong declaration or that they knowingly brought damaged goods to the Customs wharf. 3. At the wharf the Customs authorities noticed defect in the goods. The Agency was therefore called upon to conduct a fresh examination. The Agency found that the goods were not exportworthy. It was on the basis of such finding that the Customs authorities issued Ext. P1 notice. 4. I may at the outset point out that the only offence alleged to have been committed by the exporter is violation of the prohibition contained in the Notification issued under S.6 of the Quality Control Act. Confiscation was ordered solely on the basis of S.113 (d) and S.118 (b) of the Customs Act. Although S.11 (2) (h) was mentioned in Ext. P1 notice, it appears to have been given up in the orders subsequently passed. There is no reference to S.113 (i) or S.50 of the Customs Act. The power vested in the authorities by virtue of Clause.10A of the Exports (Control) 0.1968 read with the provisions of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 does not appear to have been invoked. 5. I shall now refer to the provisions of law relied on by the department in support of the impugned orders. The object of the Quality Control Act is the sound development of the export trade. An agency competent to issue quality control certificates has been setup under the Act. The notification issued by the Government under S.6 of the Act prohibits the export of notified goods without a valid certificate. S.6 of the Quality Control Act reads as follows: "6. Powers in the Central Government in regard to quality control and inspection. If the Central Government, after consulting the Council is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the development of the export trade of India, it may, by order publish in the Official Gazette, (d) prohibit the export in the course of international trade of a notified commodity unless it is accompanied by a certificate issued under S.7 that the commodity satisfies the conditions relating to quality control or inspection, or it has affixed or applied to it a mark or seal indicating that it conforms to the standard specifications applicable to it under clause (c)." Clause (d) refers to a certificate issued under S.7 of the Act. S.7 provides for examination of the goods by the agency. If the agency is satisfied as to the quality of the goods they may issue a certificate to that effect. S.7 (3) reads as follows: "If, after the examination, the agency is of opinion that the commodity satisfies the standard specifications laid down in respect of it under S.6 or, as the case may be, any other specifications stipulated in the export contract, it may issue a certificate that the commodity satisfies the conditions relating to quality control and inspection." In the instant case it is not denied that the goods in question were covered by valid certificates and that it was under such certificates that they reached the wharf. These certificates were evidence as to quality, and the goods covered by them were presumed to be export-worthy. The presumption disappears only when, upon a subsequent examination, it is found that the goods are in fact not export-worthy. 6. It is possible that even in the case of goods which were certified to be of proper quality, an exporter can be penalised in cases where he knowingly makes a wrong statement as to the quality of the goods. S.50 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the exporter to make a statement as to quality. It reads: "Entry of goods for exportation. (1) The exporter of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer in the case of goods to be exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and in the case of goods to be exported by land, a bill of export in the prescribed form. (2) The exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export, shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents." S. 113(i) of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of "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 S.77 in respect thereof." Again, Clause.10A of the Exports (Control) Order, 1968, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, reads as follows: 10A. Declaration as to value, sort, quality, etc. of exported goods. Declaration as to value, sort, quality, etc. of exported goods. On the exportation from any Customs port of any goads, whether liable to duty or not, the owner or exporter of such goods shall, in the Shipping Bill or other relevant document state the value, sort, specification, quality and description of such goods to the best of his knowledge and belief, and certify that the quality and specification of the goods, as stated in those documents, are in accordance with the terms of the export contract entered into with the buyer or consignee in pursuance of which the goods are being exported, and shall subscribe to a declaration to the truth of such statements at the foot of such Shipping Bill or other documents." S. 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act says that any violation of the requirement of a truthful statement under Clause.10A of the Exports (Control) Order is deemed to be a violation of the prohibition under S.11 of the Customs Act, thereby bringing into operation all the provisions of the Customs Act, including those contained under S.113 (i). I have referred to S.50 and S.113(i) of the Customs Act and Clause.10A of the Exports (Control) Order, and S.3(2) of the Imports and Exports. (Control) Act, only to show with what powers the Customs authorities are clothed in case an exporter knowingly makes wrong statements as to the quality of goods. In the present case no such power has been invoked, and no such case has been put forth by the department. 7. I shall therefore confine myself to an examination of the provisions relied on by the department. I have already referred to the relevant provisions under which the goods are certified by the competent agency. The provisions of the Notification published under S.6 of the Quality Control Act are alleged to have been contravened. 7. I shall therefore confine myself to an examination of the provisions relied on by the department. I have already referred to the relevant provisions under which the goods are certified by the competent agency. The provisions of the Notification published under S.6 of the Quality Control Act are alleged to have been contravened. The Notification prohibits the export of goods which are not accompanied by a certificate issued under the Quality Control Act, I shall read the relevant portion of the Notification: "(4) Prohibits the export in the course of international trade of fish and fish products unless the same is accompanied by a certificate issued by any of the Export Inspection Agencies established at Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Cochin under S.7 of the Export (Quality, Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) to the effect that fish and fish products conform to the specifications as set out in the said Annexure." As I stated earlier, the goods were admittedly covered by valid certificates when they were brought to the wharf. Until the goods were subjected to further examination and declared not export-worthy, these goods had not violated the prohibition contained in the Notification. S.113(d) of the Customs Act has been invoked to confiscate these goods. It says: "113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported etc. 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 in force; Admittedly no attempt had been made to export these goods after they were declared unexportworthy. Until the goods were brought to the wharf and subjected to an examination, no attempt had been made to export them contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. The certificates which operated, until they were cancelled after the subsequent examination on the wharf, were sufficient evidence as to the quality of the goods and as to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned for export under, the Notification issued under S.6 of the Quality Control Act. The certificates which operated, until they were cancelled after the subsequent examination on the wharf, were sufficient evidence as to the quality of the goods and as to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned for export under, the Notification issued under S.6 of the Quality Control Act. Consequently it cannot be stated that the goods in question had, by any stretch of imagination, been attempted to be exported in violation of S.113(d) of the Customs Act. The department has no case that after the declaration of unexportworthiness any attempt to export has been made by the exporters. In fact the goods had been cleared from the wharf immediately after the examination on execution of a bond. The goods were not brought back to the wharf at any time thereafter. It was therefore inconceivable that, after the declaration of the unexportworthiness of the goods, any attempt had been made to export them. There is no such allegation. Looking at the section, it is impossible to hold otherwise. S.113(d) read in isolation can only apply to cases where the department has a case that subsequent to the declaration of unexportworthiness the exporters made an attempt to export. S.118(b) of the Customs Act can also have no application to the facts of this case for the reasons mentioned with reference to S.113(d). Since the goods are not liable to confiscation on the basis of S.113(d), the package or any other goods contained in such package, cannot come within the scope of that provision. 8. Respondents' counsel Shri Chacko submits that it is not sufficient that the goods are covered by a certificate but that they should in fact be exportworthy. That argument might have had some relevance I would say much relevance if the department had set up a case to attract S.113(i) read with S.50 of the Customs Act. There is no such allegation and those provisions are not invoked. In the circumstances counsel's submission has no relevance to the facts of this case. 9. The impugned orders Exts. P1, P3, P6 and P8 are set aside. The O.P. is accordingly allowed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Allowed.