Delhi High Court Orders Release of Padma Bhushan Awardee B.C. Sanyal’s Artwork | Customs’ Pakistan-Origin Claim Unproven, Valuation Found Approximate
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed the release of an artwork created by Padma Bhushan awardee B.C. Sanyal, which had been detained by the Customs Department. The Court held that there was no conclusive evidence to establish Pakistan as the country of origin and recorded that the valuation of ₹30 lakhs was based only on approximation. Pending further proceedings, the bench ordered that the painting be released to the importer subject to an ad-hoc deposit towards differential duty and redemption fee, emphasizing that continued detention risked damage to the artwork.
The proceedings arose out of a writ petition filed by the proprietor of Dhoomimal Art Gallery, along with an employee, challenging an order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs dated 23 July 2025. The dispute centered on an artwork titled “The Scarecrow”, created in 1972 by late B.C. Sanyal, a Padma Bhushan awardee and renowned Indian painter.
The petitioners had sought to import the artwork from Dubai through Bill of Entry No. 958966 dated 9 January 2024. The declared value of the painting at import was 200 USD. Customs authorities, however, alleged that the artwork originated in Lahore, Pakistan, and that the declared value was grossly understated. Based on an art valuer’s report, the customs authorities assessed the value at ₹30 lakhs.
The Principal Commissioner of Customs rejected the classification declared under CTH 97019100 and reclassified the painting under CTH 98060000 of the Customs Tariff, treating it as goods originating in or exported from Pakistan. The authority also re-determined the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. Redemption of the goods was permitted on payment of ₹30,000 under Section 125. Differential duty of ₹83,23,037 was determined under Section 28(4), along with interest under Section 28AA, after appropriating the customs duty of ₹4,963 already paid. Penalties were imposed under Sections 114A, 114AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, cumulatively against the gallery and its employee.
The petitioners contended before the Court that the artwork was created in India, a fact supported by the statement of the artist’s daughter, Ms. Amba Sanyal. They argued that the artwork’s condition required restoration, justifying the declared value of 200 USD. It was submitted that the customs authorities failed to follow the sequential method prescribed under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, while rejecting the declared value. They further maintained that the country of origin could not be attributed to Pakistan, as the artwork had been imported from Dubai.
The Customs Department opposed the writ petition, asserting that the order was appealable and well-reasoned, thereby precluding interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Department highlighted that the tube in which the artwork arrived bore indications of origin in Lahore, Pakistan, though the importation was made through Dubai. The Department relied upon the valuer’s report to justify the re-determined value and classification, and contended that the impugned order warranted no interference.
The Court observed: “The first and foremost fact in the present case is that it is an admitted position on record that the artwork is one, which was created by Late Shri B.C. Sanyal, who was an acclaimed artist in India.” It further recorded: “The bill of entry itself reveals that the import is being effected from Dubai, but the impugned order records that the packaging material reveals that the same is from Lahore, Pakistan and, thereafter through Dubai, the import is being effected.”
Regarding origin, the Bench quoted the impugned order: “It is clear from the written submission of the importer that BC Saniyal was a renowned Indian painter and his daughter in her written letter cleared it that the painting is made in India in the year 1972. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence in the SCN that the painting was made in Pakistan. Therefore, the origin of the painting is not necessarily Pakistan.”
On the risk of deterioration, the Court recorded: “Firstly, 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.”
On valuation, the Court observed: “The Court has also 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.”
The Bench concluded that, given the Petitioner’s position as a well-established art gallery owner, the artwork deserved release subject to financial deposits and pending further adjudication.
The Court directed: “Accordingly, it is directed that the artwork be released to the Petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) The Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as an ad-hoc deposit towards differential duty. (ii) 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.”
“Upon the said deposits being made, the artwork shall be released to the Petitioner, on or before 10th September, 2025. The above terms shall however, be subject to further orders of this Court.”
The Customs Department should file a counter affidavit within four weeks, with rejoinder within a further four weeks, and listed the matter for further hearing on 11 November 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Satvik Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel
Case Title: Uday Jain & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo and Import & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7576-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13092/2025 & CM APPL. 53630/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
