2022 (7) TMI 465 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns antiquity classification, orders return/export of goods.

Shri Rahul Chauhan Versus Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order that classified the goods as antiquity, leading to their confiscation and penalties. The ... Detention of goods - Antiquity or not - appellant is a manufacturer of handicraft of stone etc. - non-application of mind - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is apparent, without resorting to the process of retest as directed by this Tribunal from a reputed Gems and Jewellery Laboratory, the Court below has passed the impugned order without application of mind. The adjudication order is non-speaking, arbitrary and against the directions of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Department is directed to return the goods to the appellant or allow export of goods forthwith within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Export of handicraft or antiquity2. Detention of goods for obtaining NOC from ASI3. Certification of goods as antiquity4. Retest request denied5. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties6. Compliance with Tribunal's direction7. Non-speaking and arbitrary adjudication orderIssue 1: Export of handicraft or antiquityThe dispute in the appeal revolved around whether the goods exported were handicraft or antiquity. The appellant, a certified handicraft manufacturer, exported items detained by the ASI for suspected antiquity, leading to the need for obtaining a NOC from the ASI.Issue 2: Detention of goods for obtaining NOC from ASIUpon examination by the Dy. Superintendent - Archaeologist, the goods were suspected to be antiquity and detained for obtaining a NOC from the Archaeological Survey of India, as per the inspection report dated 14.12.2016.Issue 3: Certification of goods as antiquityThe ASI certified the items as antiquity, except for the iron blade of a dagger, which was deemed non-antiquity. Despite the appellant's request for a retest, it was not allowed, leading to the goods being held liable for confiscation and penalties imposed.Issue 4: Retest request deniedIn a previous round before the Tribunal, the appellant's request for a retest was not allowed, prompting a remand for retesting by a recognized Gem and Jewellery Laboratory to determine the classification of the goods. The appellant obtained a certificate from an ISO certified testing laboratory, certifying the items as made from natural aventurine stone.Issue 5: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penaltiesThe ASI's decision, coupled with the absence of a competent laboratory to certify antiquity, led to the goods being classified as antiquity, resulting in absolute confiscation and penalties imposed on the appellant and FeDex Express Transportation.Issue 6: Compliance with Tribunal's directionThe Tribunal found that the lower court did not comply with its direction for retesting by a reputed laboratory, and the adjudication order was deemed non-speaking, arbitrary, and against the Tribunal's directives, resulting in the order being set aside, and the appeal allowed for the return or export of goods.Issue 7: Non-speaking and arbitrary adjudication orderThe Tribunal concluded that the adjudication order was non-speaking, arbitrary, and failed to follow the Tribunal's directions, leading to its reversal, and the appellant being granted relief for the return or export of the goods within a specified timeframe.