1999 (3) TMI 360 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of antique pieces and imposition of penalties under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
2. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination leading to violation of natural justice principles.
3. Lack of notice for personal hearing resulting in a violation of natural justice principles for one of the appellants.

Confiscation of Antique Pieces and Penalties:
The judgment revolves around the confiscation of 3 antique pieces and the imposition of penalties under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, had confiscated the items, including a part of a pillar depicting Dharmachakra and other motifs, part of a pillar depicting a stupa and other motifs, and a seated Jaina Thirthankara in Dhyana Mudra on a Pedestal. These items, valued at Rs. 95 lakhs, were attempted to be exported in contravention of the Act. Penalties of varying amounts were imposed on the appellants based on their roles in the attempt to export antiquities against the law. The first appellant, who filed the export papers, was penalized, along with the second appellant for abetting the smuggling attempt, and the third appellant was considered the mastermind behind the illegal export.

Denial of Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
The judgment highlights the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The first appellant had requested to cross-examine the author of a crucial report, Dr. I.K. Sarma, and another individual involved in the valuation committee. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this request without sufficient reasons provided by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the denial of cross-examination of Dr. I.K. Sarma was unjust as his report formed the foundation of the case. This denial was viewed as a contravention of natural justice principles, necessitating a review of the adjudication process.

Violation of Natural Justice Principles for Lack of Notice:
Another critical issue in the judgment was the lack of notice for personal hearing, resulting in a violation of natural justice principles for one of the appellants. The adjudicating authority had relied on the cross-examination of a witness to hold the third appellant liable for penalties. However, it was revealed that no notice for a hearing after a specific date was sent to the third appellant, who had changed residences and informed the authorities accordingly. This lack of notice for a subsequent hearing was deemed a gross violation of natural justice principles concerning the third appellant. Consequently, the judgment set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in the legal process.