Judgment B.P.Jha, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Annexures 1, 2 and 3. 2. Annexure-1 contains an order of the Assistant Collector, Customs. Annexure-2 contains an order of the appellate authority, and Annexure-3 contains an order of the revisional authority. These orders have been passed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The question for consideration in the present case is : Whether the petitioner was exporting the prohibited goods as mentioned in the Exports (Control) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Order)? 4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner omitted to mention 28 pieces of woollen carpets in the declaration under Sec. 50 of the Act, in respect of prohibited goods. In Item No. 32(1)(b) of Schedule I of Part A of the Order, it is provided that handwoven woollen carpets and woollen chain stitched rugs are prohibited goods. In other words, prohibited goods cannot be exported or imported unless he is a licensee under the Order. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is not a licensee or a permit holder under the Order for exporting handwoven woollen carpets and woollen chain stitched rugs. 5. The petitioner can be held guilty provided he was exporting handwoven woollen carpets and woollen chain stitched rugs. According to the petitioners case, he was exporting 28 pieces of woollen wall hangings. The case of the petitioner was rejected by all the authorities. However, the respondents are required to prove that the petitioner was exporting either handwoven woollen carpets or woollen chain stitched rugs. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no finding that the petitioner was exporting handwoven woollen carpets or woollen chain stitched rugs. Learned counsel for the respondents also failed to point out any such finding. In the absence of such a finding the authorities are not entitled to impose a penalty under Sec.114 of the Act. 7. In the present case, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner violated Item No. 32(1)(b) of Schedule-I of the Order. Item No. 32(1)(b) mentions the items of prohibited goods. In other words, nobody can export or import the prohibited goods. 7. In the present case, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner violated Item No. 32(1)(b) of Schedule-I of the Order. Item No. 32(1)(b) mentions the items of prohibited goods. In other words, nobody can export or import the prohibited goods. If anyone does so without a licence or permit, he will be held guilty and a penalty shall be imposed upon him under Sec.114 of the Act. In the absence of a finding to the effect that the petitioner was carrying handwoven woollen carpets or woollen chain stitched rugs, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is not in accordance with law. Hence, I quash partly Annexures-1, 2 and 3 only to the extent of imposition of penalty under Sec.114 of the Act. The remaining portion of Annexures-1, 2 and 3 is not being interfered by me. 8. In this circumstance, I set aside the imposition of penalty of Rs. 500.00 under Sec.114 of the Act upon the petitioner and the petition is, accordingly, allowed in part. If the fine has been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. There will, however, be no order for costs.