9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed Shipping Bill No.1017546, dated 11.08.2003 for export of handicrafts items, namely, three statues and metal brass ports. On examination, the Customs officials detected that three statues were found to be of antique look and accordingly referred the matter to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The report of the Committee of Experts, ASI dated 17.10.2003 held that out of three statues, two were antiques and cannot be exported. The report of the ASI was intimated to the respondent vide letter dated 11.11.2003. On the basis of the report dated 17.10.2003, the Customs Department got the valuation of the impugned statues through an Ex. Reader, Department of Fine Arts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .09.2006, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 30.11.2009. In the said order, the Hon'ble court directed the DG, ASI to re-examine the articles in question himself or to get it examined by a competent officer nominated by him. The report dated 06.08.2012 of the ASI was communicated to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs stating that both the objects were formed to consist of artificial patination/ colouration on the surface which were removed easily on application of chemical and hence cannot be attributed to be patination of age. 6. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following facts to hold that the adjudication order was not sustainable:- (i) The committee who delivered final verdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port and observations made by the Committee appear to be suggestive to categorize the object as No-Antiquity while the Committee has declared the said object to be Antiquity which does not appears to be in conformity with observations of the Committee made after conducting the artistic, archaeological and scientific examination of the object. I find that committee's final verdict with regard to second object to be Antiquity appears to have been delivered contrary to their observations made in para 7 of the report and the results of examination shown in the Annexure II. 16. Besides it, Dr. R.S. Fonia, Authorised Nominee of the Director General Archaeological Surevey of India, in the cross-examination dated 27.01.2014 has also confirmed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned goods as well as imposing penalty on the appellant appears to be unsustainable. Accordingly, confiscation of the impugned goods is set aside and redemption fine and penalty are also consequently set aside." 7. Since the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the aforementioned premise has held that the opinion delivered by the Committee declaring the objects, i.e., Decorative Female Figure with two hands and legs missing, to be Antiquity appears to be not sustainable. I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order at this juncture since such conclusion has been arrived at by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upon proper analysis of the factual details. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
