9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n U.S.A. for the last 20 years. The 1st petitioner is a doctor by profession and worked in U.S.A. in various hospitals for the last 20 years. They have decided to return to India for permanent settlement. They had shipped their personal effects and household goods to India in the month of June, 2000 which include the goods belonging to both wife and the husband. Dr. Diwakar R. Kattar had returned to India in the month of July, 2000 but the 2nd petitioner could not accompany him due to medical reasons and her journey to India was postponed. The 1st petitioner filed baggage declaration form No. 49/2000 on 12-7-2000 before the respondent to clear the personal goods of both his and of the 2nd petitioner and also their household goods seeking benefit of Rule 8 of Baggage Rules, 1988. The baggage declaration was filed on behalf of both as permitted by the respondent. The baggage included one revolver of the 1st petitioner and the Remington gun of the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners the revolver was for personal use of the 1st petitioner whereas the Remington gun was for the personal use of the 2nd petitioner which was purchased in the year 1992 as she stays at home for most ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply was submitted in which it was pointed out that the gun belongs to the 2nd petitioner and it was purchased more than 5 years back for her personal use and protection. It was also stated that she was holding valid licence for possession of the weapon and she satisfied all the conditions prescribed under the Ministry of Finance letter dated 5-1-1988 and that duty was also paid and therefore it was requested to release the gun without any delay. Instead of releasing the gun, the 2nd petitioner was called for personal hearing on 18-5-2001 and during the personal hearing she submitted that the gun belongs to her and it was in her possession and use since 1992 and it is imported for her use. 3.It is submitted that the respondent, after considering the oral and written submissions, passed an order on 26-6-2001 confiscating the gun along with 10 sluggers and 152 cartridges under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the ground that the import of the same is in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act read with para 4.5 of Exim Policy 1997-2002 and Section 3 of the Foreign Trade Act. Against the said order dated 26-6-2001 an appeal was filed before the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on' (singular). Further, the word used is 'their' (plural) and not 'his/her' (singular). Thus, it is a deliberate policy of the Government of India to allow import of one firearm only to persons bringing their effects on transfer of their residence. I find that the appellant and her husband Dr. Diwakar R. Kattar on their return to India brought two firearms along with the cartridges/slugs under unaccompanied baggage and claimed the transfer of residence in respect of the same as personal effects. The appellant has deposited duty of Rs. 22,828/-, fine of Rs. 3,500/- and penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on 15-7-2000 for both the revolver and the gun and the ammunition. On doing so, one revolver and 50 cartridges of .22 bore imported by Dr. Diwakar R. Kattar have been released to him on payment of appropriate duty, redemption fine and penalty. However, the gun along with 10 sluggers and 152 cartridges of .22 bore imported by Mrs. Aruna R. Kattar were confiscated vide the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The action of the Department in releasing revolver and 50 cartridges of .22 bore to Dr. Diwakar R. Kattar on payment of appropriate duty, redemption fine and penalty and confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to their return to India and as per Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules, 1988 each person is entitled to the benefit of bringing one firearm on transfer of residence, in our opinion, each petitioner is entitled to import one gun each, however, on payment of duty, fine and penalty if imposed. In the instant case the duty, fine and penalty were collected by the respondent, according to the petitioners, in respect of both the weapons. According to them para 4.5 of the Exim policy is not applicable but only para 5.6 of the Exim policy read with ITC aligned classification Chapter 98.03 and Rule 3(1)(i)(h) of the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993 is applicable. The petitioners further submit that as per the above provisions read with the letter dated 5-1-1988 each of them is entitled for import of one firearm. 8.In the instant case the authorities have thought it fit to impose fine and penalty on the firearm belonging to the 1st petitioner and the second firearm was ordered for absolute confiscation as per the provisions of the Customs Act. In our opinion, the order passed by the authorities in confiscating the gun brought by the 2nd petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law both the husband and wife are independent persons and therefore the 2nd petitioner is entitled for release of her weapon in terms of the Ministry of Finance letter. The Ministry's letter dated 5-1-1988 has to be read along with Baggage Rules. Under the Baggage Rules, each person is entitled for the concession granted. Rules 3, 4 and Appendices A and B of the Baggage Rules start with the expression "passengers". However, the benefit of the rule is extended to each passenger. In Rule 5 the word "professionals" is used but the same is extended to each professional returning to India. In the same way the word "persons" is used in the Ministry's letter dated 5-1-1988. The said letter has to be read along with Rule 8 of the Baggage Rules which are applicable to persons transferring their residence to India and under it each person is entitled to the benefit of the rule. In other words, the word "persons" has to be understood in the light of the object and purpose for which the letter is issued along with other words used in the letter. As per the letter dated 5-1-1988 the import of gun is permitted subject to the conditions that the same should be in the possession and use abroad for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
