Attempt to export requires proximate acts, not mere preparation; confiscation and penalty fail without proof of export movement.

Search and seizure under section 105 of the Customs Act must comply with statutory limits and procedural safeguards; the record did not show that the BSF party acted under proper authorisation or in accordance with applicable criminal procedure requirements. Confiscation under section 113(b) and section 113(d) requires proof of an act proximate to export, beyond mere preparation; goods found in a shop premises in India, without concrete steps showing movement towards export to Bangladesh, did not satisfy that test. As no legally sustainable attempt to export was established, the confiscation failed and the penalty under section 114 could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods seized from a shop premises were liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of attempted export, and whether the record disclosed any legally sustainable attempt to export within the meaning of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that search and seizure powers under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 are subject to statutory restrictions and the record did not establish that the BSF party acted under proper authorization or in compliance with the applicable criminal procedure safeguards. On the merits, the Tribunal applied the settled distinction between preparation and attempt, holding that confiscation under section 113(b) and section 113(d) requires proof of an act proximate to export and beyond mere preparation. The goods were found in a shop premises in the Indian territory, and the adjudication order did not explain what concrete steps showed an attempt to export them to Bangladesh. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that seizure of textile goods from such premises, without proof of movement towards export, does not attract confiscation under section 113. Since the foundation for confiscation failed, the penalty imposed under section 114 also could not survive.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable because no proved attempt to export was established.

---