Export Intention Not Proved, so confiscation of grocery items and personal penalties were set aside.

Confiscation of grocery items and personal penalties were found unjustified where customs relied only on proximity to the Indo-Bangladesh border to allege intended export. The shops were licensed and located beyond the interception point, which was on the regular route to the shops, and no recorded statement of the boatman linked the goods to Bangladesh. Mere delay in claiming the goods did not shift the burden to the importers, and the material on record did not establish an export intention. The confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of grocery items and imposition of personal penalties were justified on the allegation that the goods were meant for export to Bangladesh.

Analysis: The appellants' shops were licensed and situated beyond the interception point. The interception site was on the regular route to the shops, and proximity to the Indo-Bangladesh border by itself did not establish an intention to export. No statement of the boatman was recorded to show the destination of the goods. Mere delay in claiming the goods did not shift the burden from customs, and the material on record did not establish that the goods were intended for export to Bangladesh.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not justified and were set aside.

---