1989 (12) TMI 209 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Immunity of the Chogyal of Sikkim from Indian laws.
2. Ownership of the Nataraja Idol and Pedestal.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the show cause notice.
5. Grounds for interfering with the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Immunity of the Chogyal of Sikkim from Indian Laws:

The appellant contended that during the relevant time, the Chogyal of Sikkim was a sovereign ruler of a foreign state and thus entitled to immunity from Indian laws, including the Customs Act, 1962 and the Antiquities (Export Control) Act, 1947. The appellant cited the principle from international law that a sovereign ruler is exempt from local jurisdiction, including civil or criminal tribunals, taxation, and other regulations. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Chogyal of Sikkim was entitled to such immunity if it could be shown that the Nataraja idol and pedestal were his property and were being exported to him in New York.

2. Ownership of the Nataraja Idol and Pedestal:

The Tribunal examined whether the Nataraja idol and pedestal belonged to the Chogyal of Sikkim. The appellant relied on a letter dated 15th March 1973, stating that the packages were personal effects of the Chogyal. However, the author of the letter, Shri Palchowdhury, later disclaimed knowledge of the packages and stated that he signed the letter under the appellant's direction. Statements from other witnesses, including the appellant's driver and the caretaker of the Chogyal's flat, contradicted the appellant's claim that the packages belonged to the Chogyal. The Chogyal initially claimed the packages but did not pursue the claim after the packages were found to contain the Nataraja idol and pedestal. The Tribunal concluded that the packages did not belong to the Chogyal and thus, he was not entitled to immunity.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as he was not provided with copies of statements of witnesses and was not allowed to cross-examine them. The Tribunal found that the appellant was furnished with copies of all relevant documents and was given opportunities to inspect them. The appellant did not request to cross-examine any witnesses. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges in criminal proceedings, which was a strong piece of evidence against him. Thus, the Tribunal held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:

The appellant contended that the show cause notice was invalid as it cited the Antiquities (Export Control) Act, 1947, which had been repealed by the Antiquities and Treasures Act, 1972. The Tribunal noted that both the 1947 Act and the 1972 Act prohibited the export of antiquities. The incorrect citation of the Act in the show cause notice did not prejudice the appellant, as the underlying allegation of attempting to export antiquities remained valid under both Acts. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that an incorrect statement in a demand does not vitiate the exercise of power if the nature of the demand is clear. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was valid.

5. Grounds for Interfering with the Impugned Order:

The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appellant's arguments were not substantiated by evidence, and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being without merit.