1989 (6) TMI 148 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Baggage Rules and conditions for clearance of unaccompanied baggage.
2. Prohibition on importation of firearms under Public Notice.
3. Application of old instructions from Circular No. 26 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
4. Violation of the Universal Postal Convention and its consequences.

Interpretation of Baggage Rules:
The appellant imported a revolver as unaccompanied baggage, claiming clearance under the Baggage Rules. The Assistant Collector of Customs found that the appellant did not meet the conditions of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules as the revolver was not in the passenger's possession abroad. The Assistant Collector also noted that import of firearms required a Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) and that the importation of firearms by post violated the Universal Postal Convention. Consequently, the revolver was confiscated. The appellant's appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was unsuccessful as the possession requirement was not met.

Prohibition on Importation of Firearms:
The appellant argued that the importation of the revolver predated the prohibition on importing firearms as gifts under Public Notice 131/ITC/PN/85-88. The appellant contended that the prohibition did not apply as the firearm was imported as unaccompanied baggage for personal use. Reference was made to an old instruction from Circular No. 26, dated 10th August 1970, which allowed items ordered from places not visited by passengers to be considered as baggage if available for delivery within a specified timeframe. The appellant asserted that the revolver should be considered as baggage under these instructions.

Application of Old Instructions:
The appellant relied on Circular No. 26 to argue that the revolver should be treated as baggage even though it was not in the passenger's possession abroad. The appellant emphasized that the item did not lose its status as baggage merely because it was not physically taken over by the passenger while abroad. The appellant's position was supported by the instructions in Circular No. 26, which allowed for the benefit of the Baggage Rules in certain circumstances.

Violation of the Universal Postal Convention:
The department alleged a violation of the Universal Postal Convention due to the importation of the firearm by post. The appellant's advocate contended that the provisions of Article 60 of the Convention were not mandatory and that any violation led to an extra surcharge by the postal department. The advocate argued that the violation of the Convention did not warrant confiscation of the revolver. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, finding them cogent and unrebutted by the department, and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the appellant.