Illicit export of goods requires sufficient evidence of export intent before confiscation can stand

Confiscation for alleged illicit export of sugar could not be sustained because the evidentiary basis for export intention was insufficient. The record showed that the driver was carrying documents and that the claimant later produced ownership papers, but the impugned order did not properly consider those documents and proceeded on an unsupported assumption of movement without licit papers. As the material on record did not establish an attempted illegal export, the adverse findings and connected confiscation orders were set aside and relief was granted to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department had proved an attempt to export sugar illicitly so as to sustain the confiscation and allied orders.

Analysis: The show cause notice itself recorded that the driver was carrying documents and that the claimant later produced documents asserting ownership. The impugned order did not deal with those documents and proceeded on the premise that the goods were being carried without licit papers. On the material available, the evidentiary basis for concluding that the sugar was intended for illegal export was found insufficient.

Conclusion: The attempt to export sugar illicitly was not proved. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and adverse findings could not be sustained for want of proof of illicit export, and the appellants obtained relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of attempted illicit export cannot be sustained unless the evidence relied upon is properly considered and is sufficient to establish the export intention on record.

---