The court held that components such as Frames and Slides can be imported with additional furniture parts as long as the manufacturer holds a valid license, and the denial of release based on additional components was unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J.

1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of arms has approached this Court seeking release of 'Frames' and 'Slides' which had been imported under Bill of Entry No. 9037350 dated 09 June 2022 and Bill of Entry No. 9038081 of the same date, aggrieved by the fact that the said consignments had been withheld by the Customs authorities. When the writ petition was initially entertained the Court had noted that the petitioner had been duly granted the requisite import permission by the competent authority in the office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade [DGFT]. During the course of consideration, it came to the fore that although the petitioner`s consignment had been duly inspected by the Delhi Police in terms of the statutory obligation placed by Rule 88(5) of the Arms Rules 2016 [the 2016 Rules], certain queries came to be raised and clarifications were sought from the DGFT. The DGFT in turn is stated to have approached the Ministry of Home Affairs [MHA] for providing appropriate clarifications. When the matter was thereafter taken up on 26 July 2022, the Court was informed that MHA had apprised the DGFT that the petitioner had breached the terms and conditions of the import license. Those issues stand duly highlighted in the order of the Court dated 26 July 2022, which is extracted hereinbelow:

"1. Pursuant to the last order passed, Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 4, submitted that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade [DGFT], had sought appropriate clarifications from the Ministry of Home Affairs which has informed them that while the petitioner had a valid import license for frames of handguns, the imported article was found to be fitted with other 'licensable articles' including 'hammers', 'slides', 'firing pin' and 'extractor'. In view of the aforesaid clarification, Ms. Raman contends that the petitioner is in breach of the import license.

2. The aforesaid submission is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who submits that a 'hammer', 'firing pin' or 'extractor' is not classified separately for the purposes of import and as long as the petitioner had obtained a valid import license for import of a 'frame', the stand as taken by the respondent would not sustain.

3. Learned counsel for the Delhi Police has additionally, drawn the attention of the Court to Form-7 which is a license for manufacturing and which in terms of the Explanation appended to that form classifies 'firing pins', 'frame', 'extractor' and 'hammer/striker' separately and individually. In view of the above, it is their stand that the petitioner has not adhered to the license for the import which had been issued.

4. Bearing in mind the nature of issues which stand raised, let the noticed respondents file their replies to the writ petition within a period of one week from today.

5. List again on 05.08.2022..

2. After exchange of pleadings, the matter was thereafter extensively heard on 30 August 2022. Since that order captures the essence of the dispute which has arisen, the same is extracted hereinbelow:

"Having heard learned counsels for parties at some length, the Court notes that the present writ petition gives rise to the following issues. The petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by the fact that arms and parts of arms which had been imported by him pursuant to permission granted by the respondents were not being released. The Bills of Entry with which the present writ petition is concerned are as follows:

I. Bill of Entry no. 9037350 dated 09/06/2022 for 500 Frames.

II. Bill of Entry no. 9038081 dated 09/06/2022 for 500 Slides and 1000 Magazines.

The petitioner had contended that as long as it held the requisite import permissions for import of Slides and Frames, there existed no legal impediment which would have justified the retention of those goods.

In accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Arms Rules, 2016 ["the 2016 Rules"], the Delhi P