Prohibited import classification of bullet proof jackets sustained, while personal penalty was waived for genuine interpretive dispute.

Bullet proof jackets may be treated as prohibited imports where they fall within the scope of arms under the Arms Act, 1959, even though the import policy permits life-saving equipment under the relevant classification. On the facts, the importer failed to prove that the goods were meant for the Maharashtra Police, so absolute confiscation was sustained. The penalty was, however, waived because the dispute involved a genuine conflict between import policy and customs prohibition and turned mainly on classification and importability rather than clear culpable conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import of a bullet proof jacket was liable to absolute confiscation as a prohibited import under the customs notification in view of the Arms Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the importer was liable to be waived.

Issue (i): Whether the import of a bullet proof jacket was liable to absolute confiscation as a prohibited import under the customs notification in view of the Arms Act, 1959.

Analysis: The import policy permitted life jackets and life belts under the relevant ITC classification without an express exception for bullet proof jackets, but the article was also capable of being treated as an article of defence within the scope of arms under the Arms Act, 1959. On the facts, the importer failed to establish that the goods were in fact imported for the Maharashtra Police, and no supporting proof from the police department was produced.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation of the bullet proof jacket was upheld and the import was treated as prohibited.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the importer was liable to be waived.

Analysis: The conflict between the import policy and the customs prohibition created sufficient cause to treat the matter leniently on the penal side, particularly where the dispute turned on classification and importability rather than clear culpable conduct.

Conclusion: The penalty was waived in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was sustained, but the penal consequence was set aside, resulting in dismissal of the appeal with relief limited to waiver of penalty.

---