Attempted illicit export requires independent evidence; interception on an authorised route alone could not sustain confiscation and penalties.

A finding of attempted illicit export cannot be sustained on interception of goods alone where the transport route was also the route to the appellants' shops and the purchase documents were not disputed. The record contained no independent evidence of any actual attempt to export the grocery goods to Bangladesh, so the inference of illegal export was unsupported. The confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of attempted export of grocery goods to Bangladesh, and the consequent confiscation and penalties, were sustainable on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted while being transported on the route necessarily used for reaching the appellants' shops at Karimpur. The appellants produced purchase documents, and the authorities did not dispute the basic documents or the need to pass through Nandanpur bus station. No independent evidence was shown to establish any actual attempt to export the goods illegally to Bangladesh. In these circumstances, the inference of attempted export could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The finding of attempted export was unsustainable, and the confiscation and penalties were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of attempted illicit export cannot rest on mere interception of goods on an authorised route when the record does not contain independent evidence of any attempt to export them unlawfully.

---