2016 (2) TMI 998 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of prohibited goods with imposition of redemption fine - imposition of penalty u/s 114(i) ibid - antique statues - Held that - the opinion delivered by the Committee declaring the objects, i.e., Decorative Female Figure with two hands and legs missing, to be Antiquity appears to be not sustainable - goods not proved to be antique and hence not prohibited - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order allowing export of antique statues
- Discrepancies in examination reports by ASI
- Lack of carbon dating and show cause notice after re-examination
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty

Analysis:
1. Appeal against adjudication order allowing export of antique statues:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi was made by the Revenue against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent had filed a Shipping Bill for export of handicraft items, including statues detected by Customs officials to be antiques. The ASI confirmed the statues as antiques, leading to the initiation of show cause proceedings and eventual adjudication order confiscating the statues under the Customs Act, 1962. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order in favor of the respondent, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

2. Discrepancies in examination reports by ASI:
The examination reports by the ASI revealed discrepancies regarding the nature of the statues in question. The Committee's final verdict on the statues being antiques was found to be contrary to their own observations in the report. The examination results indicated that the patination on the statues was of artificial nature, not due to age or antiquity. The lack of conformity between the observations made during the examination and the final verdict raised doubts on the decision to classify the statues as antiques.

3. Lack of carbon dating and show cause notice after re-examination:
The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the absence of carbon dating to determine the age of the statues and the failure to issue a show cause notice to the respondent after the re-examination report. These procedural lapses undermined the basis for confiscation of the statues and imposition of penalties. The failure to conduct carbon dating and provide an opportunity for the respondent to respond post re-examination were significant factors contributing to the unsustainability of the adjudication order.

4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty:
The impugned order had confiscated the statues and imposed a penalty on the respondent under the Customs Act, 1962. However, the discrepancies in the examination reports, lack of essential procedures like carbon dating, and absence of a show cause notice post re-examination led to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the opinion of the Committee declaring the statues as antiques was not sustainable, and there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of examination reports, procedural lapses, and the legal implications of classifying items as antiques, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the case.