( 1 ) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. Rule D B.

( 2 ) ON account of mis-description of the goods, the Addl. Collector of Customs confiscated the goods by his order dated 22. 6. 89 although an option was given to the petitioner to re-export the same on redemption fine of Rs. 10. 000. 00. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000. 00 upon the Thai Airways under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs and without exhausion of such remedy, the petitioner should not have approach- fed this Court. The petitioner s contention is that the order of confiscation itself js bad as the goods were bound for Kabul. For the purposes of trans-shipment, if the goods are imported, then there is no liability of payment of any duty, and without payment of duty, the goods should be allowed to be trans-shipped to Kabul. The respondents case is that in the case of. trans-Shipment under Section 54, provisions of Section 11 would be attracted as sub-Section (2) of Section 54 provides that where any goods in Customs Port are meant for transshipment t