2017 (6) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Import of prohibited goods - gun cartridges - Revenue is of the view that the goods imported were not covered by the import license and hence these were to be considered as prohibited goods - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of CC (I&G) , New Delhi Versus M/s Nanda Shastralaya 2017 (4) TMI 633 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the controversy can be decided by getting a sample of the imported cartridges with 7.65 bore goods examined and certified by a competent authority such as the Armourer of the Police Department - in the present case also, matter remanded with similar directions to the original adjudicating authority to get the samples of the imported cartridges tested and get the expert opinion regarding the impugned goods - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding imported gun cartridges not covered by the import license.
2. Applicability of imported cartridges for rifles and revolvers.
3. Reliance on expert opinions and case laws.
4. Challenge by Revenue based on discrepancies in imported goods.
5. Comparison with a similar case involving M/s. Nanda Shastralaya.
6. Remand for expert testing and denovo order.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a dispute concerning gun cartridges imported by a company, where the original adjudicating authority held that the goods were not covered by the import license, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, stating that the imported cartridges, usable in rifles and revolvers, were not prohibited goods based on expert certificates and case laws.

2. The Revenue challenged the decision, arguing that the imported cartridges were different from those declared, and the import license did not cover revolver cartridges. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous decision involving M/s. Nanda Shastralaya, where testing by an Authorised Armourer supported the importers' claims, although the case was under appeal at CESTAT.

3. The Tribunal considered the similarities with the M/s. Nanda Shastralaya case, where the issue revolved around the import of revolver cartridges under a rifle cartridge license. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert testing to determine the compatibility of the imported cartridges with the license, remanding the matter for further examination and a denovo order.

4. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of obtaining expert opinions through sample testing to resolve the crucial issue of whether the import license for rifle cartridges covered the imported revolver cartridges. The decision underscored the necessity of technical expertise in determining the admissibility of the imported goods under the existing license.

5. Following the precedent set in the M/s. Nanda Shastralaya case, the Tribunal remanded the present matter to the original adjudicating authority for expert testing and a fresh decision, ensuring all parties receive a fair hearing. The decision aimed to address the discrepancies in the imported goods and determine their compliance with the import license.

6. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of through remand, aligning with the approach taken in the M/s. Nanda Shastralaya case and emphasizing the significance of expert testing and a thorough evaluation of the imported cartridges to reach a just and informed decision.