https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376180 Section 30 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 was construed not to bar prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for export-related conduct involving antiquities, because Section 4 of the Antiquities Act expressly applies the Customs Act subject to limited inconsistency, and Section 30 was read as confined to cognate heritage laws. The offences were also treated as distinct: Section 25 of the Antiquities Act addresses export or attempted export in contravention of Section 3, while the Customs Act offences concern false declarations and fraudulent evasion. On that basis, prosecution under both enactments on the same transaction was held maintainable. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376180 Section 30 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 was construed not to bar prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for export-related conduct involving antiquities, because Section 4 of the Antiquities Act expressly applies the Customs Act subject to limited inconsistency, and Section 30 was read as confined to cognate heritage laws. The offences were also treated as distinct: Section 25 of the Antiquities Act addresses export or attempted export in contravention of Section 3, while the Customs Act offences concern false declarations and fraudulent evasion. On that basis, prosecution under both enactments on the same transaction was held maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376180