Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 18TH APRIL, 2001. versus APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 18TH APRIL, 2001.

Sections 15, 16 and 194 of the Customs Act 1969 (VII of 1975), Sections 2 (c), 24 and 26 of the Gandhara statue were charged with forgery and illegal export of the Gandhara statue, by the respondent against section 15. Such goods were seized for breach of the Customs Act, Articles 24 and 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the Archaeological Act of 1975, the duration of section 2 (c) of the \ Antiques \ Meaning \ Archeology \ Word \ Antique \ Under export must be ancient to prohibit. This means that for a long time at least 75 years in the old controversy, the goods were acknowledged as recent and modern vintage and therefore the goods were not declared antique in the dispute because it was declared by the Archaeological Department. Was declared "fake" goods. The provisions of section 26 (2) of the Antiquities Act 1975 cannot be applied to the present case as the goods which were disputed under section 26 (1) of the Antiquities Act 1972 were not forbidden, especially the export of antiques. Unless otherwise authorized by the Cus- tomes authorities, where it was forbidden to export goods on account of the conditions set out in section 26 (1) of the Antiquities Act 1975, the facts of the present case are Were not consistent with the situation described, except for the archaeological report, there is no other evidence to support the fact that the match The source of fraud. And intended to deceive the appellant that no attempt was made to export the antiquities, therefore, there was no crime under section 26 of the Antiquities Act 1976, nor did any fraud with the appellant. Was attributed to no one to deceive anyone when you need a advocate from Narang Mandi lawyer