2012(10)LCX0089

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Mathew John, Member (T)

Parag Books Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

Final Order No. C/A/335/2012-Cus(PB), dated 23-10-2012 in Appeal No. C/3082/2012

Advocated By -

Shri V.S. Negi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. S. Sector, AR,fpr the Respondent.

[Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. -

The appellant imported a telegraphic message addressed to "Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi" with certain scribbling in hand on the message. The year of the message is not clear from the document. The item was declared as "One printed/handwritten letter of Mahatma Gandhi" and its value was declared as US$ 2,074. The appellant claimed classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Item 49021010. The Customs department was of the view that the goods are of historical interest and hence it should, be classified under CTI 97050090. Goods under CTI 97050090 was restricted for import and required a license for import. Since no such licence was produced the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and was allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Further a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the appellant filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeal). He reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 5000/- each. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) the appellant has filed this appeal.


2. The appellant submits that New Delhi telegraphic office which de-livered the message came into existence only in the year 1931. So the message is of a year after 1931 that is it is less than 100 years old is not an antiquity which is classifiable under heading 9706.


3. No manuscript which is less than 75 years old can be considered as an antiquity in view of the definition at 2(l)(a)(II) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. He points out that the Archeological Survey of India gave the opinion that the impugned item is not an antiquity. He further argues that the expression "historical interest" is not defined in the Customs Act, Customs Tariff or Import Policy. According to him only goods which are covered under Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 can be considered to be items of historical interest. Since it is proved that the item is not an antiquity it cannot be considered as an item of historical interest. So the item should be classified under CTI 49021010 and allowed to be cleared without fine and penalty.


4. Ld. AR for revenue supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).


5. We have considered arguments on both sides. There is no definition of the expression "historical interest" in Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act or Import Policy. Neither is the expression defined in Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. This Act only uses the expression to give an inclusive definition of antiquity. Antiquity is defined to include any manuscript of historical value which has been in existence for more than 75 years. This definition cannot be interpreted to mean that manuscripts which are not antiquity cannot be of historical interest.


6. The Customs Tariff Heading 9705 covers :

"Collections and collector's pieces of zoological, botanical, mineralogical, anatomical, historical, archeological, paleontological, ethnographic or numismatic interest".


7. To be classified under this heading an item need not be an item of antiquity. In fact antiquity is classifiable under Heading 9706.

8. As observed by the Commissioner (Appeal), the impugned sheet of paper commands a price of US$ 2074 only for the historical interest in the paper and we do not find anything wrong with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) that the item is of historical interest and hence classifiable under CTI 97050090. Once the goods are classified under the said tariff item goods imported without licence is liable to confiscation and the person importing the goods is liable to pay penalty. The fine and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each imposed is very reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. So we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).


9. So the appeal is rejected.

(Pronounced in Court)

Equivalent 2013 (289) ELT 0375 (Tri. - Del.)