9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Export of Tanjore paintings in contravention of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. 2. Validity of expert opinion from Archaeological Survey of India. 3. Allegation of lack of speaking orders by the authorities. 4. Requirement of cross-examination of experts and consideration of evidence. 5. Necessity for re-examination of seized goods by experts. Issue 1: Export of Tanjore paintings in contravention of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972: The appeal arose from an order holding that the seized Tanjore paintings were antiques and prohibited for export under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner concluded that the paintings were antiques based on expert opinion from Archaeological Survey of India. The appellants argued that the paintings were not antiques and presented evidence challenging the report. They contended that the paintings were not over 100 years old as required by the Act. The Tribunal found that the original orders were not speaking orders and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of the seized goods by experts. Issue 2: Validity of expert opinion from Archaeological Survey of India: The Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner relied on the expert opinion from Archaeological Survey of India, declaring the paintings as antiques. The appellants contested the report's validity, highlighting the lack of clear declaration in terms of the Act's definition and the absence of a carbon test to determine the paintings' age. They argued that they were not provided with the report for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted the violation of principles of natural justice and ordered a fresh examination of the seized goods by experts to determine if the items qualified as antiques under the Act. Issue 3: Allegation of lack of speaking orders by the authorities: The appellants raised concerns about the original orders not being speaking orders, emphasizing that their evidence was not adequately considered. The Tribunal agreed, pointing out that the authorities failed to analyze the evidence and did not examine the charging section of the Act to assess the expert opinion. The lack of proper analysis and consideration of evidence led the Tribunal to remand the matter for de novo consideration. Issue 4: Requirement of cross-examination of experts and consideration of evidence: The appellants argued that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the experts whose opinion was relied upon by the authorities. They contended that their evidence, including certificates and statements, was not properly considered. The Tribunal agreed that the fundamental principle of natural justice required the experts to be produced for cross-examination and ordered a fresh examination of the seized goods with the appellants' participation in the tests. Issue 5: Necessity for re-examination of seized goods by experts: The Tribunal found that a fresh examination of the seized goods by experts was essential to determine if the paintings met the criteria of being antiques under the Act. The appellants' evidence that the paintings were not antiques and were prepared in 1993 needed to be considered in the de novo examination. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for reevaluation within a time-bound period, allowing the appellants to participate in the examination and testing of the items.
|
