Burden of proving attempted export failed where transport documents and retail-sale explanation supported lawful movement of goods.

The Tribunal held that confiscation of the goods and truck, and the personal penalties, were unsustainable because the Department failed to prove an attempted illegal export to Bangladesh. The truck was intercepted on the normal route to the appellants' grocery shops, valid documents were produced, and the driver and khalasi stated that the goods were meant for retail sale. The remaining objections, including the distance from the border and the quantity of sugar, were treated as assumptions insufficient to displace the finding that the burden of proving attempted export lay on the Department. The Revenue's appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the goods and truck, and the personal penalties, were justified on the allegation of an attempted illegal export to Bangladesh.

Analysis: The appellate authority found that the truck was intercepted on the normal route to the appellants' grocery shops, that valid documents were produced, and that the driver and khalasi stated the goods were meant for retail sale. The Department failed to produce material showing that the goods were intended for export. The Tribunal held that the remaining objections were based only on assumptions, including distance from the border and the quantity of sugar, and could not displace the finding that the burden to prove attempted export lay on the Department.

Conclusion: The confiscation and personal penalties were not sustainable and the appeals of the Revenue were rejected.

---