2018 (6) TMI 1090 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - import of Pardini Air Pistol K12 Cal. 177/4.5 - prohibited goods - Since it is a prohibited goods specified as Arms and imported without valid Arms licence the said pistol was held to be liable for confiscation - classification of imported goods - Held that - In the pre-amended portion of rule governing import of arms and amendment made with effect from 09.02.2012, the definition of Renowned Shooter was not found mentioned but he borrowed the same from Note 3 of Import licensing - Admittedly import was done after 2012 and his finding regarding acquirement/ designation of Renowned Shooter by the appellant subsequent to such import is apparent on record. But what I find in his order and from the appeal memo is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the definition of Arms and had not gone into the item description contained in notification 52 (RE)/2007/2004-09 dated 21.11.2007, which was relied on by the appellant, during the appeal proceeding. It is worth mentioning here that a person would become renowned in the field of sports after successful/ repeated participation in that field and in order to participate in the sports like shooting, availability of air gun is a basic requirement and therefore notification dated 21.11.2007 clearly distinguishes a shooter from renowned shooter and import of Arms from import of other Arms by allowing 0.177 air gun pistols for free import by shooters registered with Rifle Clubs /Association. The amended import policy of Arms and Ammunition has amended only the provisions containing the import of arms under which free import of 0.177 air guns/ pistols, which was included in the notification of 2005, has been excluded from the definition of Arms in 2012 notification. The order passed by the Commissioner on 22.07.2017 remanding Appellant s case for fresh adjudication is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of redemption with penalty in lieu of confiscation of an air pistol imported without a valid arms license.
2. Interpretation of rules governing the import of arms for sports persons.
3. Application of DGFT notifications on import of air pistols.
4. Distinction between "shooters" and "renowned shooters" for import purposes.
5. Discretion of the adjudicating authority under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal remanding the case for fresh adjudication after setting aside the order of redemption with penalty in lieu of confiscation of an air pistol imported without a valid arms license. The appellant imported the pistol through an authorized courier, and the first adjudicating authority ordered redemption of the goods with a fine and penalty. The appellate authority remanded the case, questioning the confiscation and the appellant's status as a "renowned shooter."

2. The appellant claimed the benefit of a notification allowing the import of air pistols for shooters registered with specified associations. The appellate authority erred in its interpretation, insisting on the requirement for renowned shooters only. The rules governing arms importation were scrutinized, focusing on the amendments made in 2012, which altered the definition of "renowned shooter" and the entities eligible for free importation.

3. The respondent department supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the correct interpretation of rules governing arms importation for sports persons. The Commissioner's order was deemed appropriate, considering the regulations existing before the 2012 amendments. The appellant's reliance on the earlier notification was deemed insufficient, given the subsequent changes in import policies.

4. The judgment analyzed the distinction between "shooters" and "renowned shooters" concerning the import of arms, specifically air pistols. The notification from 2007 clarified the distinction, allowing free import for shooters registered with specified associations. The failure to distinguish between these categories led to the irregularity in the initial order of redemption with penalty.

5. The discretion of the adjudicating authority under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was crucial in allowing redemption of goods in lieu of confiscation. The judgment highlighted the authority's power to offer redemption, even for prohibited goods, as established in previous cases. The conclusion allowed the appeal, setting aside the remand order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the irregularity in the initial order and the misinterpretation of import rules.