No customs duty demand on import of Antique Finished Rifles without verifying FSL Report

Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Conclusion: Neither the applicability of the legal provisions particularly with reference to the Arms Act and the Rules and various notifications had been considered nor any reasoning had been given with reference thereto, therefore, CESTAT quashed the Customs duty demand on the import of antique finished rifles with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and decide the same giving proper and substantive reasoning in support thereof.

Held: Assessee-company filed Bill of Entry No.7205764 for clearance of goods imported from Overseas supplier – M/s. Denix S.A. C/Dels Bijuteers, Spain.  Considering the warning on the catalogue found along with the goods, FSL examination report from Balestic Division, FSL and also the information gathered from the manufacturers’ website and the legal provisions, the Department issued show cause notice on the ground that assessee made incorrect declaration of the description, value and classification of the imported goods in Bills of Entry  and thereby, contravened the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993 (as amended). Assessee imported “Replica Fire Arms” convertible into Fire Arms” classifiable under CTH 93040000, which was restricted as per ITC (HS) Import Policy, without any licence or authorization from the DGFT and also imported “daggers” and “swords” with blade size more than 9” without fulfillment of the requirements specified in the MHA Notification No.S.O.667(E) dated 12.09.1985 and Notification No.S.O.831 (E) dated 02.08.2002 and thereby contravened the provisions of para 2.08 of FTP 2015 -2020 read with Section 11 (1) of the Foreign Trade (Development) and (Regulation) Act, 1992 (as amended). Assessee thereby rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Act and under Section 114 (AA) for intentionally using false and incorrect documents. Assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the customs duty demand and for the confiscation of goods under section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. It was held that neither the applicability of the legal provisions particularly with reference to the Arms Act and the Rules and various notifications had been considered nor any reasoning had been given with reference thereto by the Commissioner (Appeals) though being the first appellate authority. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and deserved to be set aside with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and decide the same giving proper and substantive reasoning in support thereof. Since the impugned order did not reflect any application of mind, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to discuss the issues on merit.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER

The present appeal has been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)CUS/D-1/ACC(IMP)/656/2018-2019 dated 31.01.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order-in-original was affirmed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.