TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of confiscation of 53 packages of general merchandise totally valued at Rs. 96,955/- under Section 125 and a personal penalty of Rs.10,000/-under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, the 'Act' for short. 3. Proceedings were instituted against the appellant by the authorities on the ground that 53 packages of general merchandise concerned in this case were attempted to be exported in contravention of law to South Africa rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act with consequential penal liability and the proceedings thus instituted finally resulted in the present impugned order. 4. Shri Jamadar, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll requisite export documents in terms of Section 51 of the Act, the goods cannot be characterised as goods attempted to be exported because export has become complete. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Lucas TVS, Madras v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras and Others reported in 1987 (28)' E.L.T. 266. The plea of the learned counsel, in our opinion, is not legally sustainable. The moment the goods are attempted to be exported out of India in contravention of law, the offence becomes complete in terms of Section 113(d) rendering the goods liable to confiscation with consequential penal consequences on the person concerned in terms of Section 114....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng from the successful attempt may not be considered to be an offence. This is so for the simple reason that once a person attempting to commit suicide succeeds in his attempt he places himself beyond the reach of law and no punishment is intended to be inflicted on the dead person or his heirs and legal representatives by imposing any fine or penalty, as they may in no way be liable or responsible for the said act. As we have earlier observed the liability of the goods to confiscation arises under Section 113(d), as soon as the goods are attempted to be exported and the attempt to export the goods necessarily precedes the actual export of the goods. Goods become liable to confiscation as soon as the attempt is made. There is no provision i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation can be enforced and by enforcement of the personal liability the offender can still be brought to book and this kind of offence may be checked. We must, therefore, hold that by virtue of Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are attracted, when there is contravention of Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in relation to goods which had in fact been exported." In the present case, the goods were very much available for confiscation and confiscation was effected. In our opinion the ratio of the ruling of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court referred to by the learned counsel has no application at all to the facts and circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statement has no evidenciary value since it was retracted is also not acceptable. No complaint was made to the judicial Magistrate at the time of remand that the statement in question was brought into existence under threat or coercion. Even though admittedly the appellant was released on bail on 9-7-1985, there was no immediate retraction of the inculpatory statement and only belatedly the appellant retracted the statement for the first time on 18-7-1985. No explanation has been given for such belated retraction. In the circumstances we reject the retraction. aS belated and resorted to in a bid to extricate himself from the clutches of law. We also find sufficient corroboration for the inculpatory statement of the appellant from the statem....