TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zation certificate dated 23 June 2016, which clearly states that the appellant have only imported one consignment earlier on 25 May, 2013 (Rifle with spare barrel), and hence is legally entitled to import the goods under the present bill of entry under dispute. Further non-import of cartridges, more than that permitted under the Import License , is also corroborated from the original Arms License , produced at the time of hearing. The cartridges imported under present bill of entry dated 22.1.2015, is within the quantity permitted under the Arms License as well as the import license issued by DGFT, which is not disputed - the order of confiscation of the consignment under Bill of Entry No. 8071705 dated 22.1.2015 is uncalled for and accordingly, is set aside along with the penalty. The Custom Department is directed to release the goods under Bill of Entry 8071705 dated 22.1.2015 forthwith to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of production or receipt of this order - Appeal allowed. - Custom Appeal No. 52410 of 2018-SM - Final Order No. 50692/2020 - Dated:- 12-6-2020 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Aksha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that at the time of import, import license was available and valid when the goods landed at the Airport. Bill of Entry with License No. 0550002276 dated 1.6.2011, was duly filed on 22.1.2015, with Import License number, and confirmed that original license was duly available with them when the shipment landed and license expired on 31.1.2015. The appellant further states that the DGFT clearly specified vide their File No. 05/30/08/141/AM12 letter no. 1223441 dated 6.9.2016, that this license cannot be renewed after 30.1.2015, which clearly establishes that his lost import license cannot be misused. The appellant wrote a letter to Commissioner of Customs, Import requesting to inform him regarding the imports done by him in the past, to which Deputy Commissioner of Customs Group III, IV and VI vide its letter dated 23.6.2016 informed the utility report in respect of License No. 0550002276 dated 23.3.2013 and informed that only one Bill of Entry No. 2233074 dated 25.5.2013 has been assessed/cleared utilizing above mentioned license as per EDI system. The said communication to the appellant clearly shows that the said import license was utilized by the appellant for the clearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umber of ammunition/cartridges, which fact have been ignored by the adjudicating authority. The appellant had provided copies of the said import license to the adjudicating authority along with the utilization certificate issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, which was not considered. The said utilization certificate dated 23 June, 2016 clearly states that only one Bill of Entry No. 2233074 dated 25 May, 2013 have been assessed and cleared utilizing the said license, as per the EDI system. No other import by the appellant, is reflected in the EDI system of the Customs. The appellant had stated that he has not imported any other consignment under the said import license, anywhere in India. That arms and ammunition being restricted items, the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the fact that for import of arms and ammunition, valid arms license (issued by the competent authority) is required. In case any ammunition is imported or would have been imported by the appellant, the same would have been also endorsed on the arms license. Thus, the goods under import ought to have been released on furnishing an indemnity bond. The confiscation of the goods was not at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008/00141/AM-12/Case No./0137 dated 14 May, 2011, with the item list, License Amendment Sheets dated 22 March, 2013, 22 January, 2014 and 7 August, 2014. It is further observed in the impugned order that the quantity mentioned in the license is the limiting factor and only up to that quantity, import can be made by the appellant. As the endorsement is required to be made on the original license only and in absence of which the endorsement could not be made by the Custom officials, the order in original of absolute confiscation was upheld rejecting the appeal. 10. Being aggrieved, the appellant is further in appeal before this Tribunal. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant urges that it is evident from the original Arms License (which was produced at the time of hearing for perusal of the Tribunal) that only one rifle .30-06 with spare barrels of .308 and .223 have been endorsed. But there is no endorsement of the consignment of cartridges under dispute, for which Bill of Entry was filed on 22 January, 2015 during the validity of the import license issued by DGFT, which expired on 31 January, 2015. It is further urged that arms and ammunition cannot be cleared by the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the Bill of Entry was filed on 22.1.2015 when the import license was valid, satisfying the condition of import for restrictive goods . Further, I find that the Principal Commissioner have issued utilization certificate dated 23 June 2016, which clearly states that the appellant have only imported one consignment earlier on 25 May, 2013 (Rifle with spare barrel), and hence is legally entitled to import the goods under the present bill of entry under dispute. Further non-import of cartridges, more than that permitted under the Import License , is also corroborated from the original Arms License , produced at the time of hearing. I find that the cartridges imported under present bill of entry dated 22.1.2015, is within the quantity permitted under the Arms License as well as the import license issued by DGFT, which is not disputed. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that the order of confiscation of the consignment under Bill of Entry No. 8071705 dated 22.1.2015 is uncalled for and accordingly, is set aside along with the penalty. 15. In the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the warehouse charges or demurrage if any, above ₹ 25,000/- are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
