Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2019 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 201 - SC - CustomsOffences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - maintainability of prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 or not - power of Collector of Customs - Section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Whether there is a common genus contained in the specific enumeration of two laws namely the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958? - Held that - The Antiquity (Export Control) Act, 1947 came into force. The said Act has been repealed by the Antiquities Act but we will refer to certain provisions contained in the Act in connection with one of the contentions of the appellant. It is thereafter that the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 which is another enactment specifically enumerated in Section 30 of the Act in question came to be enacted - The statement of objects and reasons would indicate, inter alia, that the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, were two Acts in force relating to ancient monuments. We have noticed that in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the passing of the Act and providing for the repeal of the earlier law based in the year 1947 was to provide for comprehensive law relating to antiquities. Antiquities made their appearance in the law which was made in the year 1904 as we have already noticed. Broadly the heritage of the nation can be said to be contained in immovable properties in the form of ancient monuments. Antiquities on the other hand would be essentially moveable objects. What makes it an antiquity is the historical or archaeological value which is associated with the object - The 1904 Act and The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 indicate, therefore, a one common genus. The context for the commonality is provided essentially by history. It is, inextricably intertwined with the heritage and history of the nation. All the laws reflect the legislation intention to protect the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and remains as also antiquities. Apart from the same no doubt under the Antiquities Act, art treasures being human work of art which are not antiquities but which become art treasures by way of notification declaring them to be art treasures are also dealt with. The intention behind Section 30 was as noted is to provide for any other law which deal with antiquity to continue to have force and declare its enforceability even after passing of the Antiquity Act. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the words any other law for the time being in force must be construed as ejusdem generis. The Customs Act is applicable subject to two qualifications. Firstly, it will apply except where the provisions of the Customs Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Antiquities Act. In other words, if there are provisions in the Antiquity Act, which are inconsistent with the Customs Act, the provisions of the Antiquity Act will prevail over the Customs Act - The Second limitation on the applicability of the Customs Act is as regards the specific provisions contained in Section 125 and an option ordinarily made available under Section 125 is not to be extended as provided in Section 4 of the Act. Still further legislature has taken care to incorporate certain aspects under the Customs Act under Section 25. The provision that a prosecution under Section 25 will not take away the power to confiscate or impose a penalty under the Customs Act is explicitly provided. Thus, the word any other law in Section 30 of the Antiquities Act, would not include the Customs Act, 1962. Whether prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is permitted under Section 4 of the Antiquities Act and what is the impact of Sections 25 and 26 of the Antiquities Act? - Held that - If we contrast Section 132 of the Customs Act with Section 25 of the Act, it will be seen that the offence under Section 25 of the Antiquity Act lies in exporting or attempting to export any antiquity or art treasure by violating Section 3 of the Act. When a person exports or attempt to export an antiquity it is but essential that he would be having a transaction with relation to the customs. If in his transaction with the customs in regard to export or attempted export of any antiquity or art treasure he does any of the acts contained in Section 132 of the Customs Act, can it be said that he is being prosecuted for the same offence as contained in Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Antiquity Act. The answer is, No. Quite clearly the ingredients of Section 25 of the Act and Section 132 of the Customs Act are distinct and different from one another. It may be true that it may be the same acts or transaction which gives rise to the two distinct offences but that may not matter. The prosecution is launched in regard to Section 135(1)(a) on the basis that Section 3 of the Antiquities Act prohibits export of antiquity and this is read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade and Development Act 1992 read with Export and Import Policy for the year 1992-1997 bringing in Section 11 of the Customs Act. We have expounded the ingredients of Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The view we are taking would give full play to the Customs Act to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Act as contemplated under Sector 4. The view which we are declaring does not do violence to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The contrary view which has gained acceptance at the hands of the High Court, in our view, fails to give meaning and full play as intended to the Customs Act as provided in Section 4 of the Act. Furthermore, the principle that a transaction or the same set of facts can give rise to more than one distinct offence provided the legislative intention in this regard is clear from the provisions which creates such offences cannot be lost sight of. Prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, is not barred in regard to the antiquities or art treasures - appeal allowed.
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.
|