Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether confiscation of the exported objects and the consequent penalty were sustainable when the re-examination report did not support antiquity and no fresh show cause notice was issued after re-examination.
Analysis: The re-examination material recorded that the surface colouring or accretion could be removed by chemicals, the exposed surface was red stone, and the change in colour did not appear to be due to age-related patina. The authority below also relied on the cross-examination statement that the patination was artificial. On that basis, the earlier conclusion treating the object as antiquity was found to be internally inconsistent and unsupported by the actual re-examination outcome. The absence of carbon dating and the absence of a fresh show cause notice after the re-examination report were also noted as factors weakening the confiscation order. In these circumstances, the confiscation under the Customs Act and the penalty imposed could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were rightly set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the expert re-examination contradicts the earlier antiquity finding and the proceedings are not reinforced by a fresh notice or reliable scientific determination of age, confiscation and penalty cannot be upheld.