https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252752 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. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252752 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252752