TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by Mr. Uday Jain, who is the proprietor of M/s Dhoomimal Art Gallery, and his employee Mr. Nixit Kothari. The petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23rdJuly, 2025 passed by the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (hereinafter, 'the Adjudicating Authority'). 4. There are interesting sets of facts which have given rise to the present case. An artwork, namely- "The Scarecrow", which is admittedly created by Late Shri B.C. Sanyal, who is a well acclaimed artist, is the subject matter of this petition. 5. The background giving rise to the case is that way back in 1972the said artwork created by Mr. Sanyal. However, at some unknown point in time it appears to have been removed from India. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the said misclassified and undervalued goods. d. I determine the total differential duty amounting to Rs 83,23,037/-/-(Rupees Eighty Three Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Thirty Seven only) under Section 28 (4) along with interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the customs duty amounting to Rs 4,963/- already paid in the subject BoE is appropriated. e. I impose a penalty of Rs 83,23,037/- upon Mis Dhoomi Mal Gallery under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. f. I impose a penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- upon Mis Dhoomi Mal Gallery under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. g. I impose a penalty of Rs 50,000/- upon Shri Nixit Kothari, Sales Manager of Mis Dhoomi Mal Gallery under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition shall not be entertained at the outset on this ground itself. 12. In any case, he further submits that the tube in which the artwork is imported itself reveals that the same comes from Lahore though being imported into India from Dubai. 13. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Department thus submits that the valuation of the artwork is also done by the valuer and thus, the impugned order, does not warrant any interference. 14. The Court has heard the submissions made and has considered the matter. 15. The first and foremost fact in the present case is that it is an admitted position on record that the artwork is one, which was created by Late Shri B.C. Sanyal, who was an acclaimed artist in India. Late Shri B.C. Sanyal is st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of origin given by the Petitioner deserves to be accepted? (ii) Whether the valuation that has been done by the valuer is correct and proper? and (iii) What would be the terms on which the artwork deserves to be released? 19. Before this Court proceeds to decide this matter, the Customs Department ought to be given an opportunity to raise its objection and file a counter affidavit. However, the Court has considered two facts: (i) Firstly, that the artwork is an old artwork of Late Shri B.C. Sanyal, which, if allowed to continue to lie with the Customs Department, has a potential of being damaged further and not preserved properly. (ii) Secondly, the Court has also prima facie perused the report of the....