2019 (10) TMI 825 - AT - Customs

Import of MGH I Air Pistol Cal. 4.5 (Make match guns by Cesare Morini) as Post Parcel through the Postal Appraising Department - freely importable item or not - renowned shooter - N/N. 21/2008, as against Sl.No.582 - HELD THAT - The appellant is a shooter and is a member of National Rifle Association of India and is also a member of Thrissur Rifle Association. Further as per the invoice dt. 12/09/2017, it is clearly mentioned in the description that the air pistol is having the power less than 7.5 joules and bore less than 4.5 mm / 0.177. Further, in view of the Arms Rule, a weapon having this description is freely importable and does not require any licence. Moreover, if any licence is required under the Arms Act, the same can be obtained after getting the weapon from the Customs Department. Confiscation of the weapon is unwarranted in view of the description given about the weapon in the invoice produced by the appellant. Both the authorities have not properly considered the invoice which is the document vide which the appellant has purchased the said weapon - the impugned order confiscating the weapon is unsustainable in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules regarding import of air pistols.
2. Requirement of license for imported air pistols.
3. Consideration of documents in determining legality of import.
4. Applicability of Customs Notification No.21/2008 on import duty exemption for air rifles and pistols.
5. Judicial review of impugned order by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the interpretation of rules regarding the import of air pistols. The appellant imported an air pistol and sought clearance as a freely importable item. The adjudicating authority found that the importer did not fall under the category of a renowned shooter and held that a license was mandatory for air weapons unless they met specific criteria.

2. The requirement of a license for imported air pistols was a crucial aspect of the case. The Arms Act and Rules stipulated that air weapons, including air rifles and air guns, required a license unless they met certain conditions. The importer failed to provide proof that the imported air pistol had a muzzle energy below the prescribed limit of 20 Joules, leading to the confiscation of the goods.

3. The consideration of documents in determining the legality of the import was another significant issue. The appellant argued that the air pistol was freely importable as it had a power less than 7.5 joules and bore less than 4.5 mm, based on the description in the invoice. The appellate tribunal emphasized the importance of properly considering the invoice, which clearly described the air pistol's specifications.

4. The applicability of Customs Notification No.21/2008, which exempted air rifles or air pistols of 0.177 caliber from import duty, was also raised. The appellant relied on this notification to support the exemption claim for the imported air pistol, emphasizing the specific bore size and energy specifications.

5. Lastly, the judicial review of the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was a key aspect of the case. The appellate tribunal found that the impugned order confiscating the weapon was unsustainable in law due to the description provided in the invoice and the appellant's membership in recognized shooting associations. The tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal of the appellant.