9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 357 - HC - CustomsTransfer of Residence Scheme - Import of rifle and pistol under valid licence - Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods pistol pistol empty magazines (3 Nos.) and ammunition of rifle in excess of a quantity of 50 Nos - released the other goods Held that - import of weapons is permitted subject to the conditions that the same should be in the possession and use abroad for a minimum period of one year by the passenger and also that such firearm after clearance shall not be sold loaned transferred or otherwise parted with for consideration or otherwise during the life time of such person - possession of the firearms for more than one year is not in dispute directed to release the goods - petition is disposed of accordingly
Issues:
Petitioner seeks to quash the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of firearms, citing violation of Customs Act provisions and seeking release of specific items. Dispute arises over the import of firearms and ammunition exceeding permissible limits under Transfer of Residence facility. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding fine in lieu of confiscation is questioned. The judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court is relied upon to challenge the Commissioner's decision. Issue 1: Quashing of Order-in-Appeal and Confiscation of Firearms: The petitioner challenges the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of firearms by the Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner imported firearms and ammunition under the Transfer of Residence Scheme, seeking their release upon arrival in India permanently. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confiscated certain items, citing violation of import limits. The Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking to quash the order. The High Court examined the events and relevant provisions, concluding that the confiscation was not justified. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to release the confiscated goods upon payment of specified fines and penalties. Issue 2: Violation of Customs Act Provisions and Transfer of Residence Scheme: The dispute revolves around the import of firearms and ammunition exceeding permissible limits under the Transfer of Residence facility. The respondent authorities confiscated specific items, alleging contravention of Foreign Trade Policy, Baggage Rules, and Customs Act provisions. The Court analyzed the regulations and observed that the petitioner was entitled to import the firearms based on the Ministry of Finance guidelines, subject to certain conditions. The Court found that the interpretation adopted by the authorities regarding the import limits was incorrect and ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of the confiscated items. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act: The petitioner contested the confiscation of firearms and ammunition under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalty imposition under Section 112(a). The petitioner invoked Section 125 of the Act, which allows the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Court examined the provisions of Section 125 and relevant government orders, emphasizing the entitlement of the owner to release confiscated goods upon payment of fines and penalties. The Court criticized the authorities' misinterpretation of the regulations and upheld the petitioner's right to seek release of the confiscated items under Section 125. Issue 4: Reliance on High Court Division Bench Judgment: The petitioner relied on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court to challenge the Commissioner's decision. The Court reviewed the cited judgment and found it applicable to the present case. By invoking the precedent set by the Division Bench, the Court overturned the Commissioner's order and directed the Deputy Commissioner to release the confiscated goods upon payment of fines and penalties. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the Division Bench's decision and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
|
