Suspicion near the border is not enough: confiscation and penalties fail without proof of attempted illegal export.

Confiscation and penalty for chana whole were found unsustainable where the Revenue failed to prove an actual attempt to export the goods illegally to Bangladesh. Documentary evidence showed the appellants' ownership and lawful transport to their shop, and interception on a route used to reach that shop did not, by itself, establish attempted smuggling. The two-day delay in asserting ownership was not treated as inordinate, and the Customs report supported the appellants' account. On these facts, confiscation and penalties were set aside because suspicion near the border could not replace proof of illegal export.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of chana whole and the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable when the Revenue failed to establish that the goods were being taken for illegal export to Bangladesh.

Analysis: The appellants produced documentary material showing ownership and lawful transport of the goods to their shop at Banpur. The place of interception being on the route necessarily used for reaching the shop was not, by itself, proof of attempted illegal export. The Revenue adduced no evidence to show that the goods were in the process of being exported to Bangladesh. The delay of two days in asserting ownership was not treated as an inordinate delay, and the Customs report also supported the appellants' version.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on the basis of interception near the border when the claimant produces supporting documents and the Revenue fails to prove an actual attempt of illegal export.

---