1987 (2) TMI 182 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported revolver under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act for redemption of confiscated goods.
3. Interpretation of Import & Export Policy and Baggage Rules for import of firearms.
4. Discretionary power of adjudicating officer in allowing release of prohibited goods.
5. Practice of Custom House in releasing firearms on payment of redemption fine.
6. Application of past precedents and judgments in similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The appellant imported a revolver via post parcel as a gift from his cousin, a British citizen. The Assistant Collector confiscated the revolver under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for lack of Customs Clearance Permit (C.C.P). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the confiscation without considering legal points raised by the appellant.

2. The appellant, represented by Shri J.S. Agarwal, argued for the revolver's release for personal use, citing a possession license under the Arms Act, 1959. Referring to Section 125 of the Customs Act, the appellant sought redemption on payment of a fine, highlighting provisions in the Import & Export Policy and Baggage Rules permitting such imports.

3. The appellant relied on case law precedents, including Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. Union India, to support his argument for redemption of the confiscated revolver. However, the Respondent, Shri Shishir Kumar, disputed the authenticity and relevance of the cases cited by the appellant.

4. Shri Shishir Kumar contended that the import of the revolver was prohibited under the Import & Export Policy and Customs Act. He argued that the adjudicating officer has discretionary powers under Section 125 and is not obligated to allow redemption of prohibited goods, citing the decision in Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta.

5. The judgment analyzed Section 125 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of allowing redemption for prohibited goods. The import of revolvers was deemed prohibited under the Import (Control) Order, 1955, and the decision in Sheikh Mohd. Omer v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta was referenced to support this stance.

6. Despite the prohibition, the judgment highlighted the need for fair and non-discriminatory exercise of the adjudicating officer's power. The appellant's reliance on Import & Export Policy and Baggage Rules was deemed insufficient, as the appellant failed to meet the criteria for gift imports from close relations.

7. The judgment acknowledged the Custom House's past practice of releasing firearms on payment of redemption fines, supported by instructions from the Central Board of Excise Customs. The appellant's list of similar cases was considered, indicating a consistent practice of redemption for firearms.

8. Referring to the decision in S.S. Kothari, the judgment emphasized the duty of Customs authorities to exercise their power fairly and consistently. The importance of adhering to past decisions in similar cases was highlighted to ensure fair treatment and avoid arbitrary actions.

9. The judgment distinguished the cited cases of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. and Impex International, noting their inapplicability to the current scenario. The absence of doubt regarding the prohibition of the imported revolver differentiated this case from those precedents.

10. In conclusion, the order of confiscation was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for reconsideration. The judgment emphasized the need for decisions consistent with statutory provisions and past practices of the Custom House in similar cases to ensure fairness and uniformity in treatment.