Export confiscation turns on proof of actual attempt to export; redemption and re-export issues may still be reconsidered on remand.

Liability to confiscation of export goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act depends on a factual finding that there was an actual attempt to export the goods; clauses (e) and (i) were held inapplicable where the parcel had not been brought into a customs area for export and no shipping bill had been filed. The Tribunal therefore remitted the matter for fresh examination of the confiscation issue, including the role of the courier and consignor, and directed a speaking order on redemption and re-export. It also noted that redemption under Section 125 may still be considered if confiscation is ultimately sustained, and that a criminal court's release direction does not bar customs from imposing redemption fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the diamonds were liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the question of redemption and re-export required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The declaration filed with the courier was treated as an act under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, but the Tribunal held that clauses (e) and (i) of Section 113 were not applicable because the parcel had not been brought within a customs area for export and no shipping bill had been filed. On clause (d), the Tribunal held that the decisive question was whether there had been an attempt to export the goods, and that this required fresh examination of the facts, including the role of the courier and the consignor. The Tribunal further held that if confiscation were ultimately sustained, redemption under Section 125 could still be considered, and the criminal court's direction for release did not bar the customs authority from imposing redemption fine. The request for condonation of delay in re-export was also held fit for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The confiscation issue was not finally determined and was remitted for fresh decision, with directions to pass a speaking order on the remaining issues, including redemption and re-export.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed by way of remand for de novo consideration of the confiscation question and allied reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: For export goods, liability under Section 113(d) depends on a factual determination of whether there was an actual attempt to export, while redemption under Section 125 may still be examined even where confiscation is sustained.

---