Tribunal upholds confiscation of paddy near border for illegal export under Customs Act

The tribunal upheld the confiscation of paddy/rice stored near the Indo-Nepal border, finding the appellants' actions constituted an attempt to export illegally under Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed under Section 114 based on evidence indicating intent to smuggle to Nepal. The appeals were rejected, affirming the orders of the first appellate authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the paddy/rice stored by the appellants in two godowns situated close to the Indo-Nepal border are liable to confiscation under Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether penalties can be imposed upon the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation under Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The primary issue was whether the stored paddy/rice near the Indo-Nepal border could be confiscated under Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the goods were stored in godowns within India and were not in transit towards the international border, citing various case laws to support that mere storage does not constitute an attempt to export. The cited cases included:
- Abdus Selam Biswas Vs CC (P), West Bengal
- CCP (Prev) Kolkata Vs Md. Abdus Selam
- Ajay Gurdamal Rahra Vs CC (P), Mumbai
- Asif Hossain Vs I.G. BSF West Bengal
- CC (P) West Bengal Vs Kamala Rangan Saha
- Sashmiri Vs CC

The respondent, however, relied on case laws such as:
- Manilal Bhanabha Patel Vs UOI
- Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Vs CC, Shillong

The respondent argued that the intention to export could be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity to the border and documentary evidence showing prior illegal exports. The tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court in Manilal B. Patel Vs UOI held that bringing goods near the border with intent to export suffices for confiscation under Section 113(c).

2. Penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The tribunal examined whether penalties could be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority observed that the seized goods were stored in rented godowns close to the border, and the owners of the goods were not regular businessmen in the area. The quantity of paddy stored was disproportionate to the local demand, indicating an intent to smuggle to Nepal. The tribunal also considered statements from individuals involved, such as Sh. Vijay Kumar Bajaj and Smt Soni Jaiswal, which implicated the appellants in planning to export the goods illegally.

Judicial Pronouncements and Evidence:
The tribunal reviewed various judicial pronouncements and the evidence on record. It noted that different courts and CESTAT benches had interpreted Section 113(c) differently. However, the tribunal emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts and evidence. The tribunal found that the evidence, including statements and documents, indicated a clear intent to export the goods illegally. The tribunal held that the actions of the appellants constituted an "attempt" to export, not merely a "preparation."

Conclusion:
Based on the evidence and judicial precedents, the tribunal concluded that the appellants' activities amounted to an attempt to export the goods illegally. Therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113(c), and penalties could be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals filed by the appellants were rejected, and the orders passed by the first appellate authority were upheld.

Final Judgment:
The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of penalties on the appellants, rejecting the appeals. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.

---