Attempted export confiscation requires cogent evidence; suspicion and general smuggling assumptions cannot sustain customs action.

Confiscation of medicinal goods under the Customs Act for alleged attempted export to Bangladesh was held unsustainable because the record did not establish an actual attempt to smuggle. The authorities relied on border-area smuggling trends and conjecture that the goods would have crossed the border if interception had not occurred, but the assessee produced purchase vouchers, a licence, and proof of a shop at Srinagar. In the absence of cogent supporting material, a charge of attempted export cannot rest on suspicion or general assumptions, and the confiscation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of medicinal goods under Section 113(b) and Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the allegation of attempt to export them to Bangladesh, was sustainable.

Analysis: The confiscation was based on assumptions drawn from a general trend of smuggling in the border area and on the supposition that the goods would have been taken across the border if interception had not occurred. The record showed purchase vouchers, the appellant's licence, and the existence of a shop at Srinagar, while no evidence established an actual attempt to smuggle the goods to Bangladesh. A charge of attempted export could not rest on conjecture in the absence of supporting material.

Conclusion: The confiscation was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation for attempted export cannot be sustained on suspicion or general assumptions; it requires cogent evidence establishing an actual attempt to export.

---