TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs.) 1. Cannon (Decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for display purpose) 407 8306 29 90 8306 29 90 5 2 420 5 5 3 421 5 4 422 5 Panoplie (Decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for display purpose) 518 10 6 506 10 7 508 10 8 Cartridge Belt(Decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for Display purpose) 703 4203 40 90 5 9 707 5 10 704 5 11 708 5 12 701 5 13 Catapult (Decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for display purpose) 426 8306 29 90 5 14 Sword belt (decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for display purpose) 713 4203 40 90 5 15 Paperweight (decoration and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for display purpose) 737 8306 29 90 10 16 Paper weight (Decorative and Gift Articles, Replica Weapons for Display Purpose) 56 8306 29 90 200 17 Letter opener (Dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly, the swords detailed at Sl.Nos.51-55 and daggers detailed at Sl.No.56-57 of Table A were found to have blade size of more than 9". The samples were drawn for further investigation. The appellant had earlier imported similar consignment vide Bill of Entry No.79761580 dated 12.01.2015 and the same was stopped by ICE, Patparganj, which was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.4906/2015, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi called for the Balestic report of examination of these articles by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The examination report dated 23.11.2015 was placed before the Hon'ble High Court and vide Order dated 26.11.2015, the High Court disposed of the petition observing that , " "From the above report, it is evident that the exhibits 'F1' to 'F5' cannot discharge a projectile in their present condition and these are not firearms as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. Though, it is submitted that after modification the same could be used as firearms, in the present state, they are not firearms as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. Mr. Kalra appearing for the Delhi Police (DCP Licensing) states that since these are not firearms no licensing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * Revolvers * SMGs and Rifles ix. Letter Openers x. Swords and Daggers * Dagers & Byonets * Swords * Sabres." 5. The subject consignment was placed under seizure on 19.12.2016 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. C/12051/2016 referring to the earlier writ petition and the orders passed therein and accordingly, prayed that the present Bill of Entry be assessed and the goods may be released. The Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 22.12.2016 disposed of the writ petition, inter alia, observing that :- "A reading of the previous order of the Court in the petitioner's case undoubtedly suggests that upon satisfaction, the Customs Authorities were directed to release the goods. At the same time, this Court notices that after the order, certain subsequent events occurred with the promulgation of the new rules with effect from 15.07.2016 and the introduction of Rule 89, which stipulates that import of replicas of contemporary or modern firearms would be subject to the submission of a certificate of innocuousness from the manufacturing company of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.7205764 dated 24.10.2016 and order for classification of these goods under CTH 9304 00 00 in respect of goods at Sl.No.35-50 and under CTH 9307 00 00 in respect of goods at Sl.No.51-57 of Table A. (ii) I reject the declared assessable value of Rs.6,56,842.62/- for the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No.7205764 dated 24.10.2016 in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I reject the declared assessable value of Rs.6,56,842.62 for the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No.7205764 dated 24.10.2016 in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I re-determine the assessable value as Rs.31,80,469/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Eighty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine only) for the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No.7205764 dated 24.10.2016 under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I order for absolute confiscatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2015 which was cleared by the Customs Authorities as ordered by the Delhi High Court vide Order dated 26.11.2015. It is also his contention that the earlier FSL report dated 23.11.2015 has been relied upon in a selective manner and thereby ignored the observations that, " no projectile can be fired in the present state" and the present FSL report dated 10.03.2017 has not given any view, whether the goods are capable of discharging any projectile or have all firing mechanism and, therefore, a mere composition of conversion in future cannot be a ground to retain the goods. The learned counsel also referred to the Certificate/declaration issued by the supplier/manufacturer of the imported goods stating that the goods imported are classifiable under CTH 83062900 and, therefore, there is no prohibition or restriction either under the Customs Act or under the Foreign Trade Policy to import the "Replica Fire Arms". The goods in question do not fall within the definition of " firearms" under Section 2(1) (e) of the Arms Act, 1959, according to which firearm means "arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classified under subheading 9304.00.20., which provides for: "Other arms (for example, spring, air, or gas guns and pistols, truncheons), excluding those of heading 9307". The reasoning in the said decision was that replicas of real guns are classified on the basis of their similarity in appearance to the real gun of which they are on imitation. Referring to Para 2.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy she relied on the provisions of rule 89 of the Arms Rules, 2016 whereby import of replica firearms are subject to submission of certificate of innocuousness from the manufacturing company of the country of export and an undertaking from the importer that the replica firearms are incapable, even with modification, of expelling or launching a shot, bullet or projectile. In fact, in view of the said provisions, the High Court of Delhi in its order dated 22.12.2016 rejected the writ petition holding that the permission of DGFT is essential for the import under the prevailing Exim Policy and refused to grant any relief to the appellant on the basis of its earlier order. The reliance placed by the appellant on the MHA notification S.O.2461 (E) dated 18.07.2016 granting exemption to the rep....