Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 1271
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K. A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R. LAKSHMANAN
R. Karuppan - Appellant
Versus
R. Namachivayam - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 820 of 1996
Decided On : 24 December 1996
The import of fire arms is prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS ACT - Import of fire arms - Appellant imported fire arms without a valid import licence - Adjudicating authority confiscated the fire arms and imposed a penalty - Appellant challenged the order - Held, the import of fire arms is prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962 - The appellant did not have a valid import licence - The confiscation of the fire arms and the imposition of the penalty were justified.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a renowned shooter, imported five fire arms without a valid import licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the fire arms and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the import of fire arms is prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant did not have a valid import licence. The confiscation of the fire arms and the imposition of the penalty were justified.
Issues: Whether the import of fire arms is prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the import of fire arms is prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant did not have a valid import licence. The confiscation of the fire arms and the imposition of the penalty were justified.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
A.R. LAKSHMANAN, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by Kanakraj, J., in W.P. No. 3870/96, dated 16-8-1996 dismissing the writ petition which is filed for issuing a writ ofCerticrarified Mandamuscalling for the records relating to the order passed in proceedings No. O.S. 377/96, dated 18-3-1996 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the weapons, and direct the payment of costs and punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs.
2.The order dated 18-3-1996 which is sought to be quashed is an order holding that the five fire arms brought by the appellant from London are not entitled to the benefit of the Customs Notification 146/94, that the value of the fire arms was Rs. 4, 02, 379/- and that the Fire Arms had been imported without a valid import licence, in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and was liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1992. A further penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
3.The show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 8-2-1996 was issued to the appellant who brought the following five Nos. Fire Arms along with him as accompanied baggage on 31-1-1996 from London :
S. No. Calibre Make Description S. No. of the arm
1. 12 Bore BERETTA Over Under Shotgun S/N L 75976B
2. 12 Bore BERETTA Over Under Shotgun S/N H 06253 B
3. 12 Bore BERETTA Over Under Shotgun S/N H 06681 B
4. 12 Bore BERETTA Over Under Shotgun S/N H 04409 B
5. 12 Bore BRNO Rifle NVM 56181
Since the value of the goods was not known, and their import was not permissible under Baggage Rules, the goods brought by the appellant the same were detained under D.R. No. 107139, dated 31-1-1996. The appellant in his letter dated 5-2-1996 addressed to the Addl. Commissioner of Customs hasinter aliaclaimed that as per office order dated 13-7-1993, issued by the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India, these fire arms in question can be imported without import duty and without import licence. The appellant claims that the Fire Arms imported by him are exempted from the provisions of the Import Policy and therefore, they can be imported as such without any import licence/Customs clearance permit. The appellant also claimed that the said Arms are exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 255, dated 23-10-1989. Alternatively, the goods are entitled to concessional rate of duty at 50% in terms of Notification No. 146/94 and accordingly, has requested for the clearance of the goods in terms of the above Notification No. 146/94. The appellant has also stated that the goods have been gifted to him and therefore, he is not in a position to indicate the actual value.
4.According to the Department, the import of the goods without a valid import licence is liable for confiscation under Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the appellant has not produced the valid arms licence issued by the police authorities in terms of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959
5.The appellant sent a reply to the show cause notice on 19-2-1996 which was received by the Department on 20-2-1996. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Madras by Order No. O.S. 377/96-Air, dated 18-3-1996 passed the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs formulated four points for the decision which are listed below:
1. Whether the subject goods can be cleared without a valid import licence, in terms of the present Import-Export Policy;
2. Whether the subject goods are exempted from payment of Customs Duty;
3. Whether the valuation preposed in the show cause notice can be adopted; and
4. Whether Shri Karuppan is liable for any personal penalty.
On point No. 1 it has been held that the import of fire arms even by renowned shooters requi
