2014 (11) TMI 69 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - antiques goods - Held that - without a clear finding that the goods are antiques goods cannot be confiscated under the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act read with provisions in Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. It is also necessary that such certificate is issued by the competent authority. In this case, both the requirements are not complied with. Therefore, confiscation is not sustainable in law. However, since there is a suspicion about the goods being antiques, it is only proper that these goods are not allowed to be exported but allowed to be taken back to town by the first appellant without payment of redemption fine and penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods suspected to be antiques under Customs Act.
2. Competency of the Dy. Superintending Archaeologist's opinion.
3. Requirement of certificate from competent authority.
4. Onus of proof on the appellants.
5. Legal basis for confiscation.

Analysis:
The case involved the export of goods, including suspected antiques, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Customs Officers suspected some goods to be antiques, prompting a show cause notice under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. The Dy. Superintending Archaeologist's opinion played a crucial role in this suspicion. The appellants, including the seller of the suspected antiques, contested the confiscation, arguing that the Dy. Superintending Archaeologist lacked the authority to issue a certificate under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. They emphasized the need for a certificate from a competent authority, as per legal requirements.

During adjudication, the goods were absolutely confiscated, and penalties were imposed on both appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellants filing appeals. The second appellant claimed that the goods were not antiques but items collected from demolished buildings, only 30 to 40 years old. The appellants argued that the confiscation lacked a legal basis as the Dy. Superintending Archaeologist's opinion was insufficient, and no certificate from a competent authority was obtained.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument. It ruled that without a clear finding that the goods were antiques, confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act was not justified. Emphasizing the necessity of a certificate from a competent authority, the Tribunal held that the confiscation was not legally sustainable in this case. While acknowledging the suspicion regarding the goods, the Tribunal allowed the goods to be taken back without payment of redemption fine and penalty. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.