Customs confiscation fails where the notice and order rely on different provisions without proof of smuggling or illegal export.

Confiscation of a motorcycle under the Customs Act was held unsustainable because the show cause notice invoked Section 115, while the order was made under Section 113, and the two provisions rested on materially different allegations. No evidence showed smuggling of goods, use of the motorcycle in smuggling, or intended illegal export to Bangladesh. The factual foundation required for confiscation was therefore absent, and the order could not be supported merely by a wrong citation of section. The confiscation was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the motorcycle under the Customs Act was sustainable when the show cause notice invoked a different provision and there was no evidence of attempted illegal export or smuggling.

Analysis: The notice proposed confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, while the order ultimately confiscated the motorcycle under Section 113. The allegations under the two provisions were materially different. Section 115(2) applies to a conveyance used in smuggling of goods or carriage of smuggled goods, but there was no allegation or evidence of smuggling of any goods. There was also no finding or material showing that the motorcycle was intended for illegal export to Bangladesh. Mere wrong quoting of a section could not sustain the order because the factual foundation for confiscation was absent.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confiscation of the motorcycle was quashed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under customs law cannot be sustained where the order travels beyond the notice and the essential factual basis for the invoked confiscatory provision is not established.

---