9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Importation of fire arms as gifts before the ban - Procedural lapse in obtaining Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) - Confiscation of fire arms and imposition of penalty - Distinction between prohibited and restricted goods - Discretion of adjudicating authority in releasing goods on payment of fine - Market price of imported fire arms Importation of fire arms as gifts before the ban: The appellants had imported revolvers as gifts before the ban on the importation of fire arms. The importation was allowed before 13-11-1986 under specific conditions outlined in Public Notice 27/80. The appellants argued that they fulfilled all conditions except for obtaining the Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) due to procedural lapses. They contended that confiscation of the fire arms was unjustified and should be allowed on payment of a fine. Procedural lapse in obtaining Customs Clearance Permit (CCP): The appellants failed to obtain the CCP as required under the conditions for importing fire arms as gifts. The appellants argued that this procedural lapse should not warrant absolute confiscation of the fire arms and should instead allow for redemption on payment of a fine. They cited past practices where fire arms were released on payment of fines in similar cases. Confiscation of fire arms and imposition of penalty: The lower authorities imposed harsh penalties by confiscating the fire arms due to the appellants' failure to obtain the CCP. The appellants argued that past practices and legal precedents supported the release of fire arms on payment of fines in lieu of confiscation. They emphasized the need for fair and reasonable exercise of discretion by the adjudicating authorities. Distinction between prohibited and restricted goods: The appellants argued that fire arms should not be considered prohibited goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act but rather as restricted or controlled goods under the Import and Export (Control) Act. They contended that absolute confiscation should only apply to prohibited goods, not to goods that are restricted or otherwise controlled. Discretion of adjudicating authority in releasing goods on payment of fine: The adjudicating authority has the discretion to release goods on payment of fines in lieu of confiscation. The department argued that this discretion cannot be challenged in appeal and may change based on policy considerations. However, no specific policy or instructions were presented to support the change in practice regarding the release of fire arms. Market price of imported fire arms: During the proceedings, the market price of the imported fire arms was discussed to determine the quantum of the redemption fine. Certificates from arms dealers indicated the price range of the fire arms. This information was considered in the decision-making process regarding the release of fire arms on payment of fines. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, citing the failure to fulfill conditions related to the importation of fire arms as gifts, specifically the requirement for gifts to be from close relations. The importation violated provisions of the Import Trade Control Order as relaxed by the Import Export Policy, leading to the justification for the absolute confiscation of the fire arms.
|
