Customs confiscation for attempted illegal export survives Let Export order when voluntary admissions and corroboration prove the breach.

Liability to confiscation and personal penalty under the Customs Act arises once goods are attempted to be exported in breach of law, and that liability is not wiped out by the grant of a Let Export order. A retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on where it is voluntary and corroborated by independent material; here, the admission that the goods were meant for South Africa was supported by shipping evidence, so the attempted illegal export was proved and confiscation was sustained. The redemption fine and personal penalty were, however, moderated after considering the nature and value of the goods and the circumstances bearing on quantum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods sought to be exported in contravention of law remained liable to confiscation and consequential penalty notwithstanding the grant of a Let Export order; (ii) Whether the appellant's inculpatory statement, though retracted, and the corroborative material on record established the attempted illegal export to South Africa; (iii) Whether the redemption fine and personal penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether goods sought to be exported in contravention of law remained liable to confiscation and consequential penalty notwithstanding the grant of a Let Export order.

Analysis: Liability under the Customs Act arises when there is an attempt to export goods in breach of law. The fact that export formalities were completed or that a Let Export order had been granted did not extinguish the accrued liability under the confiscation and penalty provisions. The confiscability of the goods and the personal liability of the person concerned were treated as distinct consequences flowing from the unlawful attempt.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty notwithstanding the Let Export order.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's inculpatory statement, though retracted, and the corroborative material on record established the attempted illegal export to South Africa.

Analysis: The statement recorded from the appellant was accepted as voluntary and true because it clearly admitted that the goods were intended for South Africa, the retraction was belated, and no immediate complaint of coercion was made at remand. The statement also found corroboration in the evidence of the shipping company official regarding the container's destination. On that basis, the factual case of attempted illegal export was established.

Conclusion: The attempt to export the goods to South Africa was proved and the confiscation order was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine and personal penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The value and character of the goods, the claimed profit margin, and the loss said to have been suffered were taken into account while assessing the quantum of fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and personal penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and liability were upheld, but the monetary burden was moderated by reducing both the redemption fine and the personal penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability to confiscation and personal penalty under the Customs Act accrues once goods are attempted to be exported in contravention of law, and such liability is not nullified by completion of export formalities or by a later retraction of a voluntary statement, if the attempt is otherwise proved by reliable corroboration.

---