Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2019 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (3) TMI 201 - SC - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Applicability and interpretation of Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The relationship between the Customs Act, 1962, and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
3. The impact of Section 4, Section 25, and Section 26 of the Antiquities Act on prosecution under the Customs Act.
4. The principle of ejusdem generis in statutory interpretation.
5. The significance of Section 30 of the Antiquities Act in relation to other laws.
6. The necessity of sanction for prosecution under the Antiquities Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability and Interpretation of Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The prosecution was launched under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the presence of the ingredients of the offenses under these sections. Section 132 penalizes making false declarations or documents in customs transactions. Section 135(1)(a) penalizes fraudulent evasion or attempts to evade any prohibition under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. The court found that the ingredients of these sections are distinct from those of Section 25 of the Antiquities Act, which penalizes the export or attempted export of antiquities without authorization.

2. Relationship Between the Customs Act, 1962, and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972:
Section 4 of the Antiquities Act states that the Customs Act shall apply to antiquities and art treasures, except where inconsistent with the Antiquities Act. The court held that the Customs Act's provisions are applicable unless they conflict with the Antiquities Act. Section 25 of the Antiquities Act, which provides for penalties for unauthorized export of antiquities, does not preclude prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.

3. Impact of Section 4, Section 25, and Section 26 of the Antiquities Act on Prosecution under the Customs Act:
Section 4 of the Antiquities Act allows the Customs Act to apply to antiquities, with exceptions for inconsistencies. Section 25 provides penalties for unauthorized export but does not bar other penalties under the Customs Act. Section 26 requires sanction for prosecution under Section 25 of the Antiquities Act but does not affect prosecutions under the Customs Act. The court concluded that prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act is not inconsistent with the Antiquities Act.

4. Principle of Ejusdem Generis in Statutory Interpretation:
The court addressed the principle of ejusdem generis, which limits general words following specific ones to the same category. The court found that the Antiquities Act and the Customs Act can coexist without conflict, as the Customs Act applies to antiquities unless inconsistent with the Antiquities Act. The court emphasized a broader construction to fulfill legislative intent, rejecting a narrow interpretation that would exclude the Customs Act from Section 30 of the Antiquities Act.

5. Significance of Section 30 of the Antiquities Act in Relation to Other Laws:
Section 30 states that the Antiquities Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws, including the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The court interpreted "any other law" to include laws dealing with antiquities, such as the Customs Act, provided there is no inconsistency. The court found no inconsistency between the Customs Act and the Antiquities Act, allowing both to apply.

6. Necessity of Sanction for Prosecution under the Antiquities Act:
Section 26 of the Antiquities Act requires sanction for prosecution under Section 25. However, the court clarified that this requirement does not extend to prosecutions under the Customs Act, which have their own sanctioning authority. The court concluded that prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act can proceed with the appropriate sanction under the Customs Act, independent of the Antiquities Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The court held that prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act is not barred in relation to antiquities or art treasures. The complaint filed under these sections may proceed according to law, with the court emphasizing that its observations should not influence the merits of the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates