Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 271 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of withheld consignments - imported Frames and Slides - case of respondent is that the import license stood restricted to a Slide and Frame only - requirement of separate import permission for the additional operational components found fitted thereto - violation of the import permission which was granted to the petitioner - whether the stand taken by the respondents that since the Frame and the Slide had various identifiable components of a firearm embedded to it, the terms of the import permission stood violated is sustainable in law? - whether the petitioner was obliged to have obtained the prior permission of the MHA as contemplated under Rule 57(4)? HELD THAT:- The principal objection which is taken by the respondents and which was firstly noticed in the communication of the Delhi Police dated 21 June 2022 was with respect to the imported Slides and Frames being fitted with pre-installed operational parts. The objection essentially was that the operational parts which were found to be fitted to the Slides and Frames were liable to viewed as independent components of a firearm and for which a separate import permission was liable to be obtained. This submission was addressed in the backdrop of the definition of “main firearm component” set out in Rule 2(29) and the phrase “parts and components” as defined by Rule 2(37). The respondents also sought to draw sustenance from the Explanation appended to Form VII which, according to them, is an additional indicator of the petitioner being placed under an obligation to have made requisite declarations that additional parts and components of a firearm were also proposed to be imported. This Court finds itself unable to interpret Rules 2(29) and 2(37), in a manner which may lend credence to the submission that a Frame or a Slide must, for the purposes of import, be understood to mean an article which does not have any other component or part of a firearm embedded in them. It must at the outset be noted that the expression “main firearm component” has been defined in Rule 2(29) to “mean” the barrel, frame or receiver, slide, bolt or breach block of a firearm. Rule 2(37) while defining the expression “parts and components” does not independently notice or classify any other part or component of a firearm other than the four components which are also spelt out in Rule 2(29). The Court also bears in mind that Rule 2(37) uses the both the words “mean” and “includes”. Both those Rules are therefore liable to be interpreted and understood as being exhaustive. This Court is thus of the considered opinion that merely because some of the sub-parts or components of a firearm are separately chronicled in the Explanation to Form VII, that would not lend credence to the contention that a Slide or a Frame when imported cannot be one which may come fitted with an additional component or part of a firearm - the Court thus finds itself unable to sustain the contention of the respondents that since those components were found fitted onto the Frames and Slides which were imported, the permission granted by the DGFT stood violated or flouted in any manner. As this Court views Rules 2(29) and 2(37) read with the other relevant provisions of the Act and the 2016 Rules, it finds itself unable to countenance the submission that a Frame or a Slide must be understood to mean a component of a firearm which should not or cannot be pre-fitted with other parts thereof. On an overall consideration of the above, the Court reaches the conclusion that the objection that is taken by the respondents is untenable. In summation it may only be noted that the components which are mentioned in the letter of 21 June 2022 of the third respondent and are described as “operational parts” are neither classified as a main firearm component nor as parts and components under Rules 2(29) and 2(37) of the 2016 Rules - neither the provisions made in the FTP nor those contained in the ITC (HS) or the HS lend support to the objection raised at the behest of the respondents. They do not appear to prohibit the import of a composite part of a firearm in the sense of the imported article bearing more than one component embedded and fitted as a combined product. The respondents have also failed to establish that under the prevalent import policy, the “operational parts” which were found fitted to the Frames and Slides required permissions being obtained separately and independently. Viewed in the context of the relevant statutory provisions governing the import of parts of firearms, the 1992 Act, the FTP and the ITC(HS), this Court finds itself unable to hold that the restrictive regime relating to import of firearms comprehends a prohibition in respect of items which are being manufactured locally. The respondents are directed to release the consignments - Petition allowed.
|