TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the seizure of heroin from a house away from the customs area amounted to an attempt to export goods so as to justify confiscation under the Customs Act and penalties on the appellants.
Analysis: The facts showed that the contraband was recovered from a house in Saket and not from the customs area or from a point proximate to embarkation. Mere recovery of air tickets, passports and other preparatory acts did not by themselves establish that the appellants had reached the stage of attempt. Applying the settled distinction between preparation and attempt, an attempt to export requires an overt act which is sufficiently proximate to the intended unlawful export and manifests a clear intention to complete that offence. The material on record indicated preparation for export, but not an act so proximate as to amount to attempted export within Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. In the absence of a provision under the confiscatory and penal scheme corresponding to preparation, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained on the basis of preparation alone. The Bench also noted that any action under the NDPS Act was not the subject matter of the appeal.
Conclusion: The seizure was not liable to confiscation as an attempted export, and the penalties on the appellants were unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: For confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act on the ground of attempted export, there must be a proximate overt act beyond preparation, showing a clear intention to complete the unlawful export; preparation alone is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
