Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 432 2003 SLD 432 2003 PTD 199 2002 PTCL 376
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Appeal No. 1 of 2001, decision dated: 18-04-2001
SAJID HUSSAIN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Siraj-ul-Haq for Appellant. Aijaz for
Respondent.

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 15,16,194A

Law: Antiquities Act, 1976

Section: 24,26

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 15, 16 & 194-A---Antiquities Act (VII of 1975), S.2(c), 24 & 26---Illegal export of sculpture in stucco and stone alleged to be counterfeit of Ghandhara sculpture---Respondent confiscated such goods for contravention of Ss. 15 & 16 of Customs Act, 1969 and Ss. 24 & 26 of Antiquities Act, 1975---Validity---Product should be an antiquity for prohibition of an export under S.2(c) of Antiquities Act, 1975---Term "antiquity" connotes "ancientness"---Word "ancient" means "of time long past" or `at least 75 years old"---Goods in dispute were admittedly of recent and modern vintage and had been declared so---Goods in dispute were not an antique as same had been termed as "counterfeit" goods by Archaeology Department---Provisions of S.26(2) of Antiquities Act, 1975 were not applicable to the present case as goods in dispute were not prohibited under S.26(1) of Antiquities Act 1972, which specifically prohibited export of an antique and not 'otherwise---Customs Authorities could take action, where goods were prohibited for export due to conditions laid down in S.26(1) of Antiquities Act, 1975, whereas facts of the present case did not correspond to a situation described therein---Except report of Archaeology Department, there was no other evidence to corroborate the fact that there was deception through resemblance; and there was an intention to deceive---Appellant had never made an attempt to export an antique, thus, there was no offence under S.26 of Antiquities Act, 1975---No action of deception had been attributed to appellant nor any intention to defraud someone had been shown by respondent---Provisions of S.24 of Antiquities Act, 1975, thus, were not applicable---Tribunal declared impugned order as illegal and without jurisdiction; and directed respondent to decide appellant's application for export afresh, whereas Competent Authority under Antiquities Act, 1975 would be at liberty to pursue their independent right within framework of S.24 of Antiquities Act, 1975 before an appropriate Court of law. (b) Penal, Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 28---Counterfeit, offence of---Prerequisite conditions for such offence…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492