Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The 5th respondent Mrs. Girija Muthangi filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations. She has stated in para 5 that the appellant has consistently tried to pressurise her in order to have the arms imported by him released without adjudication. Finding that he could not succeed in his attempts, the appellant has deliberately misquoted her and made false allegations regarding her treatment to him which this Court may not be pleased either to countenance or condone.

12. Mr. S. Sudarsan, Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Legal Section) filed a separate counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents meeting the points on merits raised by the petitioner in his affidavit. It is stated in his counter that the earlier order releasing the baggage cannot be relied upon as a precedent which would control the decision in the case of the present import made by the appellant. It is stated that the import of fire arms is not permitted under Baggage Rules and fire arms are specifically excluded from the purview of Rule 5 of the Baggage Rules.

17. Mr. Karuppan, claims that he is a sports person of outstanding eminence and that he was adjudged as a renowned shooter enabling him for importing shooting gear like guns etc., on concessional rate of duty and he imported shooting gears availing the concession accorded by the Government India and for the sake of battering his shooting skills. He had imported 2 guns and 5,000 rounds of ammunitions as baggage in 1991. The then Addl. Collector took a view that the guns cannot be imported without the import licence and detained the same. The matter was referred to his immediate superior the Principal Collector of Customs who ruled that the statutory baggage rules did permit import of fire arms as baggage, directed the release of the said guns and ammunition against levy of 240% of duty. Aggrieved by the said order, then Addl. Collector who detained the fire arms referred the matteer to the Customs Board. The appellant aggrieved by the levy of 240% duty instead of concessional rate of duty at 35% appealed to the Finance Ministry. The Finance Ministry and the Customs Board approved the clearance of the fire arms and ammunition as baggage and held that the appellant's import by baggage would attract only 35% duty and directed the excess collection of duty. Since then, in accordance with the said decision, thrice guns and several times ammunitions were imported as baggage and unaccompanied baggage and were cleared against payment of concessional rate of duty. Mr. Karuppan says that the directions issued by the Customs Board was pursuant to statutory powers under Section 129D of the Customs Act. Therefore, he submits that the guns imported by him should be clear without import licence and on payment of concessional duty.

(ii) that the importer is a sports person of outstanding eminence; and

(iii) that the said goods are essential for the training purposes of the importer and recommends grant of the exemption."

37. The Baggage Rules, 1994 (Notification No. 11/94-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-3-1994) was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in supersession of the Baggage Rules, 1978, Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, and the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978. Rules 5(c) of the Baggage Rules clearly states that "nothing contained in this rule shall apply to any unaccompanied baggage or to the articles listed under Appendix A to those rules." Serial No. 1 of Appendix A is 'fire arms'. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he would be entitled to import fire arms as baggage and part of personal effects irrespective of their value and without an import licence is, in our opinion, contrary to the Baggage Rules. We have already noticed that fire arm is added in the negative list. The same can be imported only by way of a licence granted under the Act in the manner prescribed above.

38. We are unable to countenance the contention of the appellant that the fire arms could be freely imported under the Baggage Rules, which, in our opinion, has no basis whatsoever. It is not the case of the appellant that he has such a licence as per the above said provision to import fire arms. His case is, that no import licence is necessary to import the fire arms and the same can be brought as a baggage. We have already noticed that the Foreign Trade (Exemption From Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993, which came into force on 31-12-1993, has been issued in supersession of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 and the Exports (Control) Order, 1988. Para 3(9)(h) of the said order enables a person as passenger baggage to the extent admissible under the Baggage Rules for the time being in force. We have already noticed the General Exemption Notification Nos. 36 and 37 and Order Nos. 146 and 147 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, which would only operate as regards the total or partial exemption of the duty paid and would not affect the aforesaid provisions of the Export and Import Policy as regards the import of fire arms. The question of assessment of duty pursuant to the said notification would arise only in the case of import itself being a legal and valid one in accordance with the policy. Even the conditions set out as against the import of fire arms in the aforesaid two exemption orders have not been satisfied by the appellant so as to attract any duty concession de hors the validity or otherwise of the import of fire arms by the appellant.