Preparation for export is not an attempt unless goods are shown moving towards export, so confiscation and penalty failed.

Mere preparation for export does not amount to an attempt unless there is proved movement of the goods towards taking them out of India. The appellants had presented a bill of export and kept the goods in their custody, but no overt act showed that the goods had crossed beyond preparation or formed part of a completed movement towards export. On that basis, the alleged export offence was not established as an attempt, and confiscation together with the personal penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conduct in presenting the bill of export and keeping the goods in their custody amounted to an attempt to export the goods without a valid permit, justifying confiscation and personal penalty.

Analysis: The decisive question was whether the acts already done had crossed the stage of preparation and entered the stage of attempt. On the facts, the goods remained in the custody of the appellants and no movement towards the border or taking out of India was shown. The presentation of the bill of export, even if irregular, did not by itself establish an attempt when the goods had not yet become part of a completed movement towards export. The legal distinction between preparation and attempt required proof of overt acts directed to the actual commission of the offence, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The act amounted only to preparation and not to an attempt. The confiscation and personal penalty were therefore not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned confiscation and penalty were set aside because the alleged export offence was not proved beyond the stage of preparation.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere preparation for export does not amount to an attempt unless there is proved movement of the goods towards taking them out of India.

---