Circumstantial evidence can prove intended illegal export under customs law, sustaining confiscation and penalty for coastal seizure.

Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies when dutiable or prohibited goods are brought near the coast or a land frontier for export from a place other than a customs station or port. The Gujarat HC noted that intent to smuggle may be proved by credible circumstantial evidence, including seizure near the coast, statements under Section 108, absence of transport documents, an implausible explanation, clandestine custody, and delayed ownership claims. It also reaffirmed that direct evidence is not required in smuggling matters, and adverse inference may arise from unexplained facts within the person's special knowledge. The confiscation of the silver bars and the penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the silver bars and the penalty imposed under the Customs Act were justified on the finding that the goods had been brought near the coast of India for the purpose of being illegally exported.

Analysis: Section 113(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies where dutiable or prohibited goods are brought near the coast of India or near a land frontier for the purpose of being exported from a place other than a customs station or customs port. The material question was whether the surrounding circumstances, including the seizure from a village near the coast, the statements recorded under Section 108, the absence of transport documents, the improbable explanation of carriage to another destination, the clandestine manner of keeping the goods, and the delayed assertion of ownership, supported the inference of intended illegal export. The Court held that direct evidence is not necessary in smuggling cases and that such intent may be proved by credible circumstantial evidence and the adverse inference arising from unexplained facts within the special knowledge of the person concerned.

Conclusion: The finding that the silver bars were kept near the coast for the purpose of illegal export was sustained, and the confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---