2015 (1) TMI 1080 - AT - Customs

Stay on export of decorated female figure with two hands and legs missing - Product antique or non antique - Commissioner held product as non antique - Held that - This is issue of technical nature and requiring in depth specialized knowledge of the statue which are being exported. Detailed procedure was followed by ASI including appeal to the Director General ASI as well as the matter finally went to Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan. On the basis of direction of High Court the matter was re-examined by the special constituted committee. The committee after detailed analysis allowed one of the statute non antiquity. However regarding decorated female figure with two hands and legs missing they maintained that it is antiquity on the basis of treatment of ornaments eyes nose rounded face and drapery this female image in red sandstone is assigned to 10th - 11th century. - Once a specialized committee have re-examined the matter and came to the conclusion Commissioner (Appeals) s view does not have finality in the matter. Considering the nature of the product has historical value the product cannot be permitted to leave India till finalization of decision in the case. Accordingly it is a fit case for grant of stay on the operation of Commissioner (Appeals) s order. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of antiquity status of statues based on expert committee reports.
2. Discrepancy between Commissioner (Appeals) and ASI findings regarding antiquity.
3. Judicial intervention and re-examination of artifacts by ASI.
4. Special committee re-examination and conclusions on the statues.
5. Legal implications of the findings on the statues' antiquity status.

Issue 1: Determination of antiquity status of statues based on expert committee reports

The judgment revolves around the assessment of the antiquity of statues, specifically a decorated female figure with missing hands and legs, based on expert committee reports. The expert committee's findings indicated that the female figure was an antiquity from the 10th-11th century due to specific characteristics like treatment of ornaments, eyes, nose, and drapery. However, another statue was deemed non-antiquity based on scientific examination showing easily removable patination, not typical of age-related patination.

Issue 2: Discrepancy between Commissioner (Appeals) and ASI findings regarding antiquity

The issue arose when the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the ASI's conclusion that the decorated female figure was an antiquity. This discrepancy led to further legal proceedings, including an appeal to the Director General, ASI, and eventually a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court directed the re-examination of the artifacts by ASI, emphasizing the importance of involving the petitioner in the examination process.

Issue 3: Judicial intervention and re-examination of artifacts by ASI

Following the High Court's directive, the Director General, ASI, re-examined the artifacts with a special team. The re-examination involved assessing the procedures and techniques used to give the statues an antique appearance. The committee recommended further scientific investigation in Dehradun to verify the authenticity of the artifacts and suggested the involvement of additional experts for a detailed re-examination.

Issue 4: Special committee re-examination and conclusions on the statues

The special committee's re-examination led to a detailed analysis of the statues, resulting in conflicting conclusions. While one statue was deemed non-antiquity due to easily removable patination, the decorated female figure was upheld as an antiquity based on specific stylistic features and characteristics indicative of the 10th-11th century. The minutes of the re-examination meeting highlighted the technical aspects considered during the assessment.

Issue 5: Legal implications of the findings on the statues' antiquity status

Considering the technical nature of the issue and the historical value of the statues, the judgment emphasized the importance of expert opinions and specialized knowledge. The court granted a stay on the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, preventing the export of the statues until a final decision was reached. The urgency of the matter led to prioritizing the appeal for a final hearing, ensuring a timely resolution of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the complexities involved in determining the antiquity status of artifacts, the role of expert committees and legal interventions, and the significance of specialized knowledge in resolving such disputes.