Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 402
2010 (3) Supreme 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Anirudh Singh Katoch — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4094-96/2010 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 27622-27624 of 2008)
Decided on : 5-5-2010
Headnote:Arms Act, 1959 -Sections3,10-Arms Rules, 1962- Appellant, an Indian citizen,went to USA for further studies –Appellant had licences for the possession of three firearms-Appellant, brought said three firearms with him on transfer of his residence to India- On appellant’s arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi with his baggage and firearms an Order was passed by Respondent no. 3,Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi detaining two duly licensed firearms which the appellant brought from USA-Writ Petition-Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court - Letters Patent Appeal –Dismissed by Division Bench –Appeals- Insofar as Baggage Rules, 1998 were concerned, said Rules deal with import of duty free articles by a person in his bona fide baggage- The contention of appellant that he was entitled to bring in more than one firearm because of transfer of residence by relying upon Baggage Rules held to be misconceived- Only inference that could be drawn from these Rules was that duty free import of firearms was not permissible- Division Bench had rightly considered the provisions contained in Customs Act, 1962,Baggage Rules, 1959 Act and Rules framed thereunder, 1992 Act and the Exim Policy and did not commit any error in holding that a person is not entitled by virtue of 1959 Act or the Rules framed thereunder to bring into India such licensed firearms, if any provision of law prohibits or restricts the bringing of such articles- In the light of Exim Policy, import of firearms was permissible only against an import licence issued by DGFT to renowned shooters / rifle clubs for their own use on the recommendation of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports and the appellant had been denied import licence because he was not covered by this category-No interference called for with order passed by Division Bench-Appeals, having no merit dismissed. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the Case :
The core question that arose for consideration in present appeals was whether Respondent no. 3,Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport,New Delhi was justified in detaining two duly licensed firearms which the appellant brought from United States of America (USA) on transfer of his residence into India.
Findings of the Court :
Insofar as Baggage Rules, 1998 were concerned, said Rules deal with import of duty free articles by a person in his bona fide baggage. The contention of appellant that he was entitled to bring in more than one firearm because of transfer of residence by relying upon Baggage Rules was held to be misconceived. Only inference that could be drawn from these Rules was that duty free import of firearms was not permissible. Division Bench had rightly considered the provisions contained in Customs Act, 1962,Baggage Rules, 1959 Act and Rules framed thereunder, 1992 Act and the Exim Policy and did not commit any error in holding that a person is not entitled by virtue of 1959 Act or the Rules framed thereunder to bring into India such licensed firearms, if any provision of law prohibits or restricts the bringing of such articles. In the light of Exim Policy, import of firearms was permissible only against an import licence issued by DGFT to renowned shooters / rifle clubs for their own use on the recommendation of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports and the appellant had been denied import licence because he was not covered by this category.No interference was called for with order passed by Division Bench. Appeals, having no merit were dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
Leave granted.
2.In these three appeals, by special leave, the core question that arises for consideration is, whether the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi (Respondent no. 3) was justified in detaining two duly licensed firearms which the appellant brought from United States of America (USA) on transfer of his residence into India.
3.The appellant—an Indian citizen—went to USA for further studies in 1984. He graduated in Computer Science from Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA and worked with a Medical Instrumentation firm there. He holds licences for the possession of three firearms, namely, (1) Walther PPKS SNW007450 (NPB Pistol) (2) NPB Rifle and (3) DBBL Gun under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘1959 Act’) and the Arms Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘1962 Rules’). Before coming to India, he is said to have consulted the Indian Consulate in San Francisco, USA with regard to these firearms and he was 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. He was told at the customs clearance counter that he was permitted only one firearm under the Transfer of Residence Rules and he had to obtain the firearms import licence for the other two firearms from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). All the three firearms were, thus, detained by Respondent No.3 and a detention order was issued on October 1, 2000 recording, ‘detained for clearance as per Rules’. Thereafter on February 16, 2001, one of the firearms, namely, Walther PPKS.32 ACP Handgun was released to the appellant and the other two firearms remained in the custody of the custom officials. It transpires that the appellant made an application with the DGFT on February 1, 2001 for import of the two firearms which were detained by the custom officials. On March 8, 2001, the appellant was informed by DGFT that as per the import policy, import of firearms and ammunition is not permitted except against a licence to renowned shooters/rifle clubs for their own use on the recommendation of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports and since the application made by the appellant did not come under that category, his case has been referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs for their recommendation. The correspondence seems to have ensued between the appellant and various authorities but the two firearms were not released. The appellant then served legal notices upon the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade and Ministry of Commerce. In response thereto, the appellant received a communication dated March 26, 2001 from the DGFT informing him that he was entitled to bring only one firearm into India. The appellant thereafter approached Delhi High Court for quashing the detention order dated October 1, 2000 and the communication dated March 26, 2001 and for direction to the respondents to release his two firearms with a further direction to the District Magistrate (Nainital) to keep the licences of the two firearms detained by custom officials alive till such time the said firearms were returned to him.
4.The respondents filed counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition and pointed out that firearms fall under the restricted category of Exim Policy (1997-2002) and as such import of firearms is not permitted except against an import licence issued by the DGFT to renowned shooters/Rifle Clubs for their own use on the recommendation of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. The respondents submitted that although import of firearms is not permitted as per the Exim Policy, yet one firearm has been allowed under instructions dated January 5, 198
