2010 (5) TMI 10 - SC - Customs

Transfer of firearms from United States of America (USA) on transfer of residence into India.- Baggage Rules, 1998 - Indian Consulate in San Francisco, USA with regard to these firearms has told that he was allowed to take his personal firearms to India provided he held valid Indian firearms licences. The appellant, accordingly, brought the aforesaid three firearms with him on transfer of his residence to India. The appellant arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on October 1, 2000 with his baggage and firearms. Held that The extract of the Exim Policy clearly shows that the import of sporting, hunting or target-shooting shotguns, including combination shotgun-rifles is not permitted except against a license by renowned Shooters/Rifle Clubs for their own use and that too on the recommendation of the Government of India. Thus, it stands clearly established that the import of firearms, which is governed by the Exim Policy, is prohibited thereunder, except to the extent stated therein Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for detaining firearms by customs authorities.
2. Applicability of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 1962.
3. Relevance of the Exim Policy (1997-2002) and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
4. Interpretation of Baggage Rules, 1998 concerning firearms import.
5. Impact of Ministry of Finance Circulars on firearms import.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for Detaining Firearms by Customs Authorities:
The core question was whether the Additional Commissioner of Customs was justified in detaining two firearms brought by the appellant from the USA upon transferring his residence to India. The customs authorities detained the firearms on the grounds that the appellant was permitted to bring only one firearm under the Transfer of Residence Rules and required an import licence for the other two. The appellant's subsequent application for an import licence was denied by the DGFT, leading to the continued detention of the firearms.

2. Applicability of the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 1962:
Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 prohibits the acquisition, possession, or carriage of firearms without a licence. Section 10 prohibits the import of arms without a licence issued under the Act. The appellant argued that he held valid licences for the firearms and thus should be allowed to bring them into India. However, the court noted that the prohibition in Sections 3 and 10 did not entitle the appellant to import firearms if other laws restricted such import.

3. Relevance of the Exim Policy (1997-2002) and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992:
The Exim Policy (1997-2002) and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 were crucial in this case. Paragraph 4.5 of the Exim Policy restricts the import of firearms unless a licence is issued by the DGFT to renowned shooters or rifle clubs. Paragraph 4.7 states that no person may claim a licence as a right. The court agreed with the Division Bench that the import of firearms is governed by the Exim Policy, which prohibits such import except under specified conditions.

4. Interpretation of Baggage Rules, 1998 Concerning Firearms Import:
The appellant contended that under the Baggage Rules, 1998, he was entitled to bring in more than one firearm due to his transfer of residence. However, the court found this argument misconceived, stating that the Baggage Rules deal with duty-free import of articles in bona fide baggage and do not permit the duty-free import of firearms. The Division Bench correctly interpreted that the Baggage Rules do not override the restrictions imposed by other laws, such as the Exim Policy.

5. Impact of Ministry of Finance Circulars on Firearms Import:
The Ministry of Finance had issued circulars on January 5, 1988, and June 7, 1995, allowing the import of one firearm by persons transferring their residence to India. The court noted that these circulars permitted the appellant to import one firearm, which had already been released to him. The effect of the Exim Policy on these circulars was not considered in detail as it was not raised before the court.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court correctly interpreted the relevant laws and policies, justifying the detention of the firearms. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to import more than one firearm without the necessary import licence as per the Exim Policy and related laws.