1984 (9) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for detention of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Legal concept of "attempt to export" under section 113(d).

Summary:

1. Justification for Detention of Goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to release 39 bales of fabrics detained u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs authorities detained the goods based on a reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation due to misdeclaration. The petitioner's shipping bills described the goods inaccurately, leading to suspicion and subsequent detention.

2. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondent argued that the goods were liable to confiscation u/s 113(d) of the Act, which deals with goods attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition. The petitioner contended that section 113(d) could not be attracted as the goods were not brought within the limits of any customs area for export. The court examined whether the facts constituted an "attempt to export" under section 113(d).

3. Legal Concept of "Attempt to Export" under Section 113(d):
The court delved into the legal notion of "attempt," citing various case laws and authorities. It emphasized that an attempt involves an act towards the commission of an offence, which is more than mere preparation. The court noted that the essential feature of export is the "taking out of India." For an act to constitute an attempt to export, there must be a direct physical movement towards taking the goods out of India after all preparations are made.

The court found that the petitioner's actions did not constitute an attempt to export as there was no movement of goods towards taking them out of India. The completion of formalities up to section 50 of the Act and the subsequent request for cancellation of shipping bills indicated that the acts were preparatory, not an attempt.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondent's detention of goods on the ground that section 113(d) of the Act was attracted was not justified. The writ petition was allowed, and the court ordered the release of the detained goods.