KWICK HANDLING SERVICE PVT LTD Vs. JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner M/s. Kwick Handling Service Pvt. Ltd. presently known as M/s. Sikkas Kwick Handling Service (P) Ltd. functioning as a licensed Custom House Agent (CHA).

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case appear from the judgment of the writ Court. It appears that the CHA admitted two cardboard boxes containing the personal effects as unaccompanied baggage of one Ms. Birgitte Arnak Pedersen at Chennai Port for export to Denmark. THE said passenger has a Danish Passport and the said consignment along with the Shipping Bill No.0625691 dated 03.02.2004 were examined in the presence of one Mr. G. Ramasamy representing the CHA and during such examination it was found that there were six objects, namely three numbers of metal ornaments, two numbers of metal belts and one idol in a glass case, apart from the personal effects of the passenger. Since some of the objects looked very old they were sent for examination by the Department of Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to find out whether they are antiques or not. On examination the ASI opined that it is clear that the statue of Buddha was antique in nature and as per the Import and Export Policy of 2000-2001 export of any antique item is prohibited. THE Commissioner of Museum, Egmore was thereafter requested to depute a person to value the antique. Accordingly, the Commissioner visited the warehouse of the Customs House and valued the antique to the tune of six lakhs in the international market.

(3.) THEREAFTER, an order in Original Petition was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication Unit -Sea) over the aforesaid show cause proceedings, and in the said order, the relevant facts were noted. It was held that a personal hearing was given to one Mr. R. Ramachandran, Branch Manager and authorized signatory of CHA, who appeared for personal hearing on 30.12.2004 and submitted his written submissions. In the said written submissions, it was stated that the CHA was having lack of technical knowledge of antique and as such, there is no willful misdeclaration or misstatement. On those facts, the finding by the Adjudicating Authority is that the passenger has stated in her reply that CHA was aware of the contents of the unaccompanied baggage. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority found that before preparing the custom documents, the CHA should have ascertained the antique nature of Teracotta Buddha idol by referring the same to some experts of ASI. It was also held by the Adjudicating Authority, on facts, that all those six objects, which were suspected by the customs officers as antique, were not declared in the shipping bill, even though documentation for customer clearance was done by CHA. On those facts, the Adjudicating Authority held that the various decisions, which were cited by the CHA, are not applicable to the facts of the case and ultimately, the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication - Sea) imposed a fine of Rs.3 lakhs on the CHA under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.