Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the 2nd petitioner was entitled to import and obtain release of her firearm brought on transfer of residence, and whether absolute confiscation was proper when redemption on payment of fine and penalty was available.
Analysis: The import policy letter and the baggage rules were read as permitting one firearm to each person transferring residence, not one firearm to an entire family. The Court treated the 2nd petitioner as an independent person entitled to the benefit of the concession. It also held that the firearm was a personal effect imported for personal use, and that in such circumstances the authorities ought to have applied the redemption mechanism under the Customs Act rather than ordering absolute confiscation. The Court further found that the interpretation adopted by the appellate authority was inconsistent with the object of the exemption and with the statutory meaning of "person".
Conclusion: The 2nd petitioner was entitled to release of the firearm on payment of redemption fine and penalty, and the confiscation order could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondent was directed to release the firearm and ammunition to the 2nd petitioner on payment of the amounts fixed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing import concession on transfer of residence applies to each person, a firearm imported for personal use cannot be absolutely confiscated without affording redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.