2016 (2) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of import of ammunition - Restricted items - The case of the Revenue is that 7.62X25 Tokarev is not .30 Mauser partridges, therefore the same do not fall under Para 2.34 of the Hand Book of Procedures, 2009-14 and the respondent is not having the licence to import thereof. - respondent submits that the Bore .30 in British system was converted into 7.62 in Metric system and therefore the impugned cartridges 7.25 X 25mm, which is equivalent to 0.30mm cartridges - Held that - the respondent has not mis-declared the goods and the import made by it was quantified under Para 2.34 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol.-I), Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 and the respondent is having import licence to that extent - Revenue appeal dismissed - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the description of imported goods.
2. Interpretation of Para 2.34 of Handbook of Procedures.
3. Conversion of bore size from British to Metric system.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions.
5. Validity of the impugned order and appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a discrepancy where the goods imported were declared as .30 Mauser cartridges but were found to be 7.62x25 Win-Pistol cartridges upon examination. The Revenue contended that this contravened Para 2.34 of the Handbook of Procedures, leading to a show cause notice, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty.

2. The respondent argued that the bore size conversion from British to Metric system justified the discrepancy, citing a previous tribunal decision. The Tribunal considered this argument, noting that the conversion was not disputed by the adjudicating authority. Referring to the previous case law, the Tribunal emphasized that the focus should be on whether the imported cartridges could be used with the .30 Mauser pistol, which was affirmed by various authorities and clarifications.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that there was no misdeclaration by the respondent, and the import was in line with Para 2.34 of the Handbook of Procedures. As the respondent had the necessary import license, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and previous tribunal decisions.

4. The judgment highlights the importance of accurately interpreting the description of imported goods, considering technical specifications, and applying relevant legal provisions. It also underscores the significance of past tribunal decisions in guiding current judgments and ensuring consistency in legal interpretations within the customs and excise domain.