Abetment of illegal export and misdeclaration of antiquities supported penalty under customs law

Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained where the evidence showed abetment of an attempted export of antiquities misdeclared as auto parts. The appellant's Section 108 statement, supported by corroborative statements, indicated involvement in arranging use of another company's IE code and participating in transport, packing, and export documentation. Those facts established knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods and the false declaration made to Customs. As the goods were prohibited antiquities under the Antiquities & Art Treasure Act, 1972, the concealment and misdeclaration supported liability for attempted illegal export.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified for abetment of attempted export of antiquities mis-declared as auto parts.

Analysis: The appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 showed that he had contacted a customs agent for use of another company's IE code and had a role in the transport, packing, and export documentation of the goods. The goods were found to be antiquities prohibited for export under the Antiquities & Art Treasure Act, 1972. The appellant's own admission, supported by corroborative statements, established knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods and the misdeclaration made to Customs.

Conclusion: The appellant was guilty of abetment of attempted illegal export and the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

---