TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also necessary that such certificate is issued by the competent authority. In this case, both the requirements are not complied with. Therefore, confiscation is not sustainable in law. However, since there is a suspicion about the goods being antiques, it is only proper that these goods are not allowed to be exported but allowed to be taken back to town by the first appellant without payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consignment appeared to be antiques. Based on his opinion, a show cause notice was issued to the first appellant asking him to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act and penalty imposed on him. 2. The second appellant Shri P. Thangaraj, the proprietor of M/s. Raj Wooden Furniture, is the person who admitted that he only sold the eight piec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were suspected to be antiques. There is no confirmation from the said officer. On the basis of such suspicion, it is wrong to confiscate goods. He further contested that as per the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Section 24, the competent authority to decide whether an item is antiquity is an officer not below the rank of Director of Archaeological Survey of India, authorized by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tificate showing that the items were not antiques. He relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of V.J.A. Flynn v. Union of India - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 92 (Del.), where the High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter against SCN issued in such a case. 5. Considered the arguments on both sides. I find merit in the argument of the appellants that without a clear findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
