Confiscation for attempted smuggling needs proof of intended export; uncorroborated statements alone cannot sustain penalty.

Confiscation under Section 113B of the Customs Act requires evidence linking the goods to an intended movement towards a foreign destination. Goods intercepted away from the Bangladesh border, together with a local purchase claim and challan, did not establish attempted export to Bangladesh, and a bare statement without corroboration was insufficient. On these facts, the statutory basis for confiscation was not made out, so the confiscation and the consequential penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the goods under Section 113B of the Customs Act was sustainable on the allegation that they were intended to be smuggled to Bangladesh, and whether the consequential penalty could survive.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted about 50 kilometres away from the Bangladesh border and were found in a bus proceeding to Tior. The appellant relied on local purchase and production of challan, while the Revenue relied principally on the statement of the person carrying the goods. The record did not contain evidence showing movement of the goods towards the Bangladesh border or any material establishing an attempted export to Bangladesh. On these facts, the statutory basis for confiscation was not made out.

Conclusion: The confiscation under Section 113B of the Customs Act was unsustainable and was set aside, and the consequential penalty was also set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned confiscation and penalty were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation for attempted smuggling requires evidence linking the goods to an intended movement towards the foreign destination; a bare statement, without corroborating material, is insufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty.

---