Antique goods confiscation requires a competent certificate; mere suspicion is insufficient and confiscation cannot stand.

Goods could not be confiscated on a mere suspicion that they were antiques; confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act required a clear finding that the goods were antiques and compliance with the statutory certificate requirement under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. An opinion from the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist was only suspensive and did not amount to the necessary confirmation by the competent authority. In the absence of a proper certificate, the legal foundation for confiscation failed, and the confiscation was held unsustainable. Relief from redemption fine and penalty followed, although the goods were not permitted to be exported and could be taken back.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods could be confiscated on the basis of a mere suspicion that they were antiques, without a clear finding and without a certificate from the competent authority under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act required a clear determination that the goods were antiques and compliance with the statutory requirement that the relevant certificate be issued by the competent authority. The opinion of the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist only raised suspicion and did not amount to the required confirmation. In the absence of a proper certificate from the competent authority, the legal basis for confiscation was not established.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable in law and was set aside. The appellants were entitled to relief against redemption fine and penalty, though the goods were not to be exported and could be taken back.

---