UNI DERITEND LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed a Shipping Bill prescribing the goods as "Ferrous Investment and Precision castings - Rough Unmachined Castings of Hunting Tool". On examination of the goods, they were found to be parts of fire arms. On a reference made, the Dy. General Manager, Ordanance Factory, Ambarnath observed as below: -

(2.) Show cause notice was issued alleging that the goods tendered for export had attained the essential character of parts of shotgun. It was alleged that when the manufacturer imports or exports fire arms, parts thereof, licence under Sections 10 and 11 of the Arms Act 1959 was required. In absence of such licence, the subject parts of fire arms could not be exported. Provisions of Notification No. 40/70 Cus were also cited whereunder exports of arms without a licence was prohibited. Citing Interpretative Rule 2A it was alleged that the subject parts had acquired the essential character of parts of Fire Arms. Therefore in the absence of the appropriate document, the subject goods attracted provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs act, 1962 and also the provisions of Section 114 of the Act. After hearing the exporters, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. Referring to the Arms Act he held that the term 'Fire Arm' included parts thereof. For such parts, the manufacturers/exporters should hold a licence under the Arms Act. Using the rules of interpretation he held that the subject goods were classifiable as parts of fire arms. He confiscated the goods but permitted their redemption for home consumption on payment of a fine. He imposed a penalty on the exporters. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri Sreedharan, advocate for the appellants and Shri Pardeshi, DR assisted by Shri G.S. Gaud, Expert Appraiser for the Revenue.