2002 (2) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation of the Remington gun and ammunition.
2. Interpretation of the Ministry of Finance letter dated 5-1-1988 regarding the import of firearms.
3. Application of Section 125 of the Customs Act for the release of confiscated goods on payment of fine and penalty.
4. Compliance with the Baggage Rules, 1988 and the Exim Policy.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the confiscation of the Remington gun and ammunition.
The petitioners, a couple who returned to India after 20 years in the U.S., imported their personal effects, including a revolver and a Remington gun. The Customs authority released the revolver but confiscated the Remington gun, citing a violation of para 4.5 of the Exim Policy and Sections 11 and 111(d) of the Customs Act. The petitioners argued that the Remington gun was for personal use and had been in possession for over eight years. The court found that the authorities should have applied Section 125 of the Customs Act, which allows for the release of confiscated goods on payment of fine and penalty.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Ministry of Finance letter dated 5-1-1988 regarding the import of firearms.
The Ministry of Finance letter states that the import of firearms is strictly prohibited but allows one firearm per person transferring residence, provided it was in possession and use abroad for at least one year. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the term "persons" to mean that a family could only import one firearm collectively. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that each individual is entitled to import one firearm. The court emphasized that the word "persons" should not be replaced with "family," and each petitioner should be considered independently.

Issue 3: Application of Section 125 of the Customs Act for the release of confiscated goods on payment of fine and penalty.
The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hargovind Das K. Joshi v Collector of Customs, which held that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, authorities can offer the importer the option to release confiscated goods on payment of a fine. The court noted that in similar cases, firearms were released on payment of redemption fines, and thus, the authorities should have allowed the 2nd petitioner to get the gun released on payment of fine and penalty.

Issue 4: Compliance with the Baggage Rules, 1988 and the Exim Policy.
The petitioners argued that each person is entitled to import one firearm under the Baggage Rules, 1988, and the Ministry of Finance letter dated 5-1-1988. The court agreed, stating that the Baggage Rules and the Ministry's letter should be read together, allowing each person transferring residence to import one firearm. The court found that the authorities' decision to confiscate the 2nd petitioner's gun was incorrect and contrary to the policy.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent to release the Remington gun along with 10 sluggers and 152 cartridges to the 2nd petitioner upon payment of a fine of Rs. 3,500/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,500/-, totaling Rs. 6,000/-. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.