IMRAN HILL ARTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved with the Order -in -Appeal No. C. Cus. 611/89 dt. 28.10.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs ordering the absolute confiscation of 1 No. Brass idol sakthi (in 9 pieces) on the basis of the report obtained from Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also confirmed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25/000 on the assessee under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The appellant has requested the case to be decided on merits in terms of the advocate's letter dt. 11.4.03. Registry had sent notices of hearing to the appellant which have all come back undelivered with the postal remark "left". The counsel for the appellant has requested the case to be decided on merits. Therefore, the matter is taken up for final decision.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran submits that the appellant had committed violation under Section 11(2)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as that he attempted to export an antique. The department had got a certificate from the Director General of Archeological Survey of India. New Delhi in respect of the item which was attempted to be exported by the appellant. The certificate clearly indicated that it was an antique. Therefore proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the said item was confiscated absolutely as it is a prohibited item. He pointed out that very meager penalty has been imposed for having committed the offence. The appellants have not made out any ground for setting aside the order. He submits that the order is legal and proper and the same is required to be confirmed.

(3.) I have considered the grounds made in the appeal and I notice that the appellant has not challenged the certificate which has been issued by the Director General of Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi who have opined that the item is an antique. Antiques cannot be exported in terms of the provisions of law as noted in the order, being a prohibited item. The attempt made by the appellants with the intention to evade law is clearly brought out from their conduct and from their statement. Both the authorities have discussed the facts and law and have passed a correct and legal order. The amount of penalty imposed is not much compare to the offence committed. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the same is rejected.