Padma Bhushan Awardee

The Delhi High Court has directed the customs dept. to release artwork as there was no conclusive evidence to show Padma Bhushan Awardee's imported artwork was made in Pakistan. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed 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. The bench prima facie perused the report of the valuer, where substantial difference exists between the valuation given to the present artwork and to earlier artworks of the same artist, which have been sold in the market. Thus, prima facie, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs could be a figure which the valuer arrived at on an approximation basis without any concrete evidence to support the same. An artwork, namely- “The Scarecrow”, which is admittedly created by Late Shri B.C. Sanyal, who is a well acclaimed artist way back in 1972 the artwork created by Mr. Sanyal. However, at some unknown point in time it appears to have been removed from India. The Petitioner, who is an art gallery owner, now seeks to import the same vide bill of entry number 958966 dated 9th January, 2024.As per the said bill of entry, the import was taking place from Dubai. The value of the artwork, as declared during the import, in the bill of entry is 200 USD. However, the case of the Customs Department is that the artwork is actually from Lahore in Pakistan and its value is of Rs.30 lakhs as per the Report from an art valuer.The Customs has accordingly demanded the amounts in the order, for releasing the artwork. The petitioner contended that order, it is clearly recorded that the artist Mr. Sanyal is a Padma Bhushan awardee and the daughter of the artist, Ms. Amba Sanyal, had given a statement that the artwork was created in India. The circumstances under which the artwork may have been removed out of India is unknown. The Petitioner, being an art gallery owner, had identified the artwork and had entered into a transaction for import of the same. Given that the art work is not in a perfect condition and requires substantial restoration work, the value of the art work was declared as 200 USD. The petitioner submitted that the country of origin of artwork in this case is not Pakistan, as it is being imported from Dubai. In addition, it is also argued that the declared value of the artwork ought to be accepted by the Customs Department and if the same is not being accepted in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules, 2007, the Department had to proceed in a sequential manner, which also has not been done. The Customs Department, on the other hand, firstly objected to the writ petition being entertained on the ground that the impugned order is an appealable and a well-reasoned order, therefore, the Petitioner should be made to avail of the Appellate remedy. Thus, the writ petition shall not be entertained. The tube in which the artwork is imported itself reveals that the same comes from Lahore though being imported into India from Dubai. The valuation of the artwork is also done by the valuer and thus, the impugned order, does not warrant any interference. The court noted that since the Petitioner is a well-established art gallery owner in Delhi, the artwork deserves to be released to the Petitioner, subject to certain amounts being deposited with the Customs Department and subject to further orders of this Court. The court directed that the artwork be released to the Petitioner subject to the various conditions. Firstly, the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as an ad-hoc deposit towards differential duty. Secondly, the amount of Rs.30,000/- imposed as redemption fee under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, shall also be deposited by the Petitioner. The court held that upon the deposits being made, the artwork shall be released to the Petitioner, on or before 10thSeptember, 2025. Case Details Case Title: Uday Jain & Anr. Versus Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo And Import Case No.: W.P.(C) 13092/2025 & CM APPL. 53630/2025 Date: 28th August, 2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Satvik Verma Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh Click Here To Read Order Read More: Delhi High Court Declines to Interfere in Customs Order on Provisional Release of 5 Lakh Mobile Tempered Glass Units Seized in Karol Bagh

Padma Bhushan Awardee

No posts to display

Bengaluru Airport Customs Seizes 370 kg of Hydroponic Weed, Arrests 57 Offenders Under NDPS Act

India’s Wholesale Inflation Inches Up to 0.13% in September on Costlier Manufactured Goods

Cigarettes Concealed In Mattresses Cargo: Delhi HC Upholds Penalty Against Salaried Employees Of CHA