Prohibition of export must specify goods rather than general destinations; broad prohibitions without specific descriptions under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 are invalid.

1. The facts and proceedings leading up to this appeal are, inter alia, as follows :

2. At the material time, a Notification , No. IPC (Genl. 44)/65 issued by the Ministry of Commerce was in force. The said Notification read as follows:-
"S. O.3613 - In exercise of the powers conferred by S.3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), the. Central Government hereby prohibits the import and export of all goods, whether directly or indirectly, into or from any port or place in India, from or to any place in Rhodesia."
No. IPC (Genl. 44)/65
P. Sabanayagam
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports".

3. M/s. Hoare Miller and Co. Ltd., the respondent in this appeal carries on the business, inter alia, of export of jute goods from India. In or about September 1967, the respondent presented three shipping bills to the Customs authorities at Calcutta for export of 80 bales of Hussein bags and 50 bales of jute twist. On amendment of the shipping bills the goods were shown as intended to be shipped by the vessel s.s. "Roy Bank". The Port of discharge was shown to be Beira and the country of the final destination was shown as East Africa. On or about 14th Oct. 1967, a notice dated the 5th October 1967 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Exports; Calcutta, the appellant 1, was served on the respondent. By the said notice the respondent was directed to show cause why the goods covered by the said shipping bills should not be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against the respondent under Section 114 of the said Act.

4. It was alleged in the said notice, inter alia, that after the shipping bills had been classified on the basis of the declarations and after the respondent produced a sample drawn from the consignment of jute twine, correspondence between buyers and sellers were called for by the authorities. On scrutiny of the said correspondence it was found that the contract in respect of the goods intended for export had been entered into by the respondent and one M/s. Union Agencies (Distributors) Private Ltd. of Rhodesia. The name of M/s. Factors Zambia Ltd. of Zambia which was an associate of M/s. Union Agencies was utilized as a cover and the name of M/s. J.M. Barnett and Co., Beira was utilized as the agent of the said Rhodesian Company for diversion of the goods to Rhodesia.

5. It was contended that exports to Rhodesia were prohibited in terms of the Government of India Order No. 9/65 dt. 17th Nov. 1965 contained in the said Notification. It was contended further that the respondent by filing the said shipping bills attempted to exports goods to Rhodesia in contravention of the aforesaid prohibition and as such, the said goods had become liable to confiscation under S. 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the respondent was liable to penal action under S.114 thereof for having attempted to contravene S.11 of the read with S.3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 .

6. By a letter dated the 21st October, 1967 the respondent, without prejudice to its right and contentions, stated that the said notice was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same was devoid of material particulars and was vague and unintelligible. The appellant 1 was requested to furnish particulars and to allow the respondent inspection of documents specified in the said letter. The respondent also asked for extension of time to file their reply to the said show cause notice.

7. By a letter dt. 30th Oct. 1967 the appellant No. 1 granted to the respondent an extension of time for three weeks.

8. On the 3rd Nov. 1967 a letter was addressed by the Advocate on record of the respondent to the Assistant Collector o