KARNATAKA TRADING CO Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS, is an appeal filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Ld. Additional Collector in Order No. 94-Cus/86, dated 12.9.86. The brief facts of the case are that as per the direction of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prev.), Motihari the Customs Party visited Raxaul and searched the stocks stored in the godown of M/s. T.C.I., Raxaul and found 169 bags of Corpra weighing 7320 Kgs. stored in the godown. It was revealed that the said consignment were booked from Tiptur (Karnataka) and were meant for export which was searched by the Department on 16.2.1985 when the Preventive Escort went on checking on Motihari, at Raxaul. On interception of the Truck No. BRF-3454 loaded with Copra, they have found 196 bags of Copra out of which 165 bags were belonging to the appellants. They were all seized by the Customs Officers. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant dated 12.8.1985 stating that Copra was a banned item and they could not be exportable and since the items in question were attempted to be consigned to Nepal why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why no penalty under Section 114 be imposed for contravention of Section 3(1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The Ld. Counsel, Shri Chatterjee contended that so far as the seizure of 165 bags of Copra from the godown is concerned, at best it will amount to a preparation and it is not an attempt. The goods in question were found in the godown at Raxaul, and they were not in a moving condition. It was stationary and even though the consignment were towards Nepal, it is only a preparation and not an attempt. As far as the moving lorry was concerned, the same was found about 60 kilometres away from the Border. In support of the contention they have relied on the following decision:

(2.) The point that arises for my determination is whether there is any attempt to export Copra to Nepal or whether it amounts to a preparation only. In the decision reported in 1985-SCR-1618 (Mad.) it is held at para-24 which reads as follows :