1981 (3) TMI 93 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the import of cartridges under the Import Trade Control Policy.
2. Interpretation of the relevant entry in the Import Trade Control Policy.
3. Validity of the confiscation order under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Review of the appellate order by the Government of India.
5. Reliance on expert opinion for interpretation of the policy.
6. Consistency in the application of the import policy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the import of cartridges under the Import Trade Control Policy:
The petitioners, a partnership firm dealing in the import and sale of arms and ammunition, imported Shot gun Cartridges .12 bore 211/16" LG-T02 and LG-74 cases under licenses granted for the period April 1997 to March 1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued show cause notices alleging unauthorized import as the licenses did not cover cartridges with projectiles exceeding 5 mm in dimension. The petitioners contended that the restriction applied only to cartridges of 2 1/2 " size, not to 211/16" size.

2. Interpretation of the relevant entry in the Import Trade Control Policy:
The core issue was the interpretation of Entry No. 93.01/07(2)(ii)(a) which states: "Cartridges SA 12 bore 2.1/2" all shot sizes and any ammunition containing multiple projectiles the longest dimension of which exceeds 5 mm." The petitioners argued that this applied only to 2 1/2 " cartridges, while the respondents claimed it applied to all sizes. The court concluded that the entry should not be split and that the ban applied specifically to 2 1/2 " cartridges containing projectiles exceeding 5 mm.

3. Validity of the confiscation order under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Assistant Collector of Customs confiscated the imported cartridges under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. However, the Collector of Customs allowed the appeal, finding no restriction on the import of 211/16" cartridges. The court upheld this view, stating that the confiscation was not justified as the relevant entry did not ban 211/16" cartridges.

4. Review of the appellate order by the Government of India:
During the pendency of the petition, the Government of India reviewed the appellate order, setting it aside and upholding the confiscation. The court found this review incorrect, emphasizing that the appellate order was in accordance with the law and should not have been disturbed.

5. Reliance on expert opinion for interpretation of the policy:
The Government relied on the expert opinion of Professor L.M. Nath, which suggested that the imported cartridges could be used in a 2 1/2 " chamber. The court dismissed this reliance, noting that the expert's opinion on the technical aspects of ammunition did not justify interpreting the import policy entry. The court stressed that interpretation of policy entries should be based on their plain meaning, not on expert opinions.

6. Consistency in the application of the import policy:
The petitioners highlighted that the import of 211/16" cartridges had been consistently permitted by the authorities since 1974. The court acknowledged this consistency and noted that the relevant entry had been altered subsequently to include cartridges of any size in the ban. This historical consistency supported the petitioners' case that their import was lawful under the existing policy at the time.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the Government of India's order dated April 28, 1980, and restoring the appellate order dated January 25, 1980. The respondents were directed to release the goods and issue a detention certificate to facilitate the handover of the goods to the petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of policy entries and maintaining consistency in their application. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →