Prohibited goods and redemption discretion must be applied fairly, while gift-policy and baggage exemptions were unavailable here.

Import of revolvers and pistols is prohibited unless supported by the required licence or Customs Clearance Permit, and such prohibited goods fall within the scope of section 111(d) of the Customs Act. For confiscated prohibited goods, redemption under section 125 is discretionary rather than mandatory. The Import & Export Policy gift benefit was confined to specified close relations, so a cousin could not claim it, and the Baggage Rules did not assist where the firearm was not imported as baggage. The text also emphasises that fiscal discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and consistently with established practice in identical cases.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported revolver was a prohibited good and, if so, whether redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was discretionary; (ii) Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of the Import & Export Policy, 1985-88 and the Baggage Rules for import of the firearm; (iii) Whether the Customs authorities were bound to follow the past practice of allowing similar firearms to be released on payment of redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether the imported revolver was a prohibited good and, if so, whether redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was discretionary.

Analysis: The import of revolvers and pistols was prohibited except under a licence or Customs Clearance Permit under section 3 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 read with Item 93.02 of Chapter 93 of Schedule 1 to the Import (Control) Order, 1955. The expression "any prohibition" in section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as covering every kind of prohibition, including partial prohibition. In the case of prohibited goods, section 125 vested discretion in the adjudicating officer to allow redemption and did not impose an absolute duty to do so.

Conclusion: The revolver was a prohibited item and redemption under section 125 was discretionary, not mandatory.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of the Import & Export Policy, 1985-88 and the Baggage Rules for import of the firearm.

Analysis: The policy benefit for gifts applied only to close relations of the specified category, subject to prescribed conditions and procedure. A cousin was not within the specified class of close relations. The item was also not imported as baggage, so reliance on the Baggage Rules did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to claim the policy or baggage-based exemption.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs authorities were bound to follow the past practice of allowing similar firearms to be released on payment of redemption fine.

Analysis: The record showed an unrefuted past practice in the Custom House of allowing similar firearms to be redeemed on payment of fine, and the cited administrative instructions were not denied. The governing principle was that discretionary power in fiscal matters must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and identical cases should not be treated differently without compelling reason.

Conclusion: The impugned order was inconsistent with past practice and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law and the established practice followed in similar cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscated goods are prohibited goods, redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is discretionary, but that discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and consistently with established practice in identical cases.

---