Confiscation of seized sugar fails where mere border-area storage does not prove any attempt at illegal export.

Confiscation of seized sugar was held unsustainable where the only basis was its storage near the Bangladesh border with an alleged intent to export it illegally. The record contained no evidence of an attempt to smuggle or otherwise move the goods across the border, and mere storage in a godown was not treated as equivalent to an attempt at illegal export. On that factual footing, the lower appellate authority's order was found free from infirmity, and the confiscation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the seized sugar was sustainable on the ground that it was being stored near the Bangladesh border with an alleged intention of illegal export.

Analysis: The confiscation had been set aside on the finding that no evidence had been adduced to show any attempt to illegally export the sugar. Mere storage in a godown was held not to be synonymous with an attempt to export goods illegally. In the absence of evidence showing that the sugar was being smuggled to Bangladesh, no infirmity was found in the order of the lower appellate authority.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not justified and the Revenue appeal failed.

---