By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, SEPT 08, 2013: IN December, 1984, the petitioner visited Singapore and purchased a Smith & Wesson revolver and a double barrel gun. He obtained a letter dated 24th December, 1984 from the High Commission of India at Singapore that arms could be imported into India under the Baggage Rules, if they were covered by a valid arm possession licence.

On the petitioner's return to India the revolver and the double barrel gun were detained under detention certificate dated 8th January, 1985. The double barrel gun was subsequently released to the petitioner on 30th July, 1985. However, the revolver was not released and it transpires that the same was sold by the department on 18th August, 1986.

The present Writ Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on 20th April, 1995 i.e. after more than 10 years of the said import and nearly 9 years after sale of the revolver by the Custom authorities and praying for restoration and restitution of the said revolver.

The High Court viewed that the WP cannot be allowed in view of the extraordinary delay and latches in approaching the Court.

On merits too, the High Court after narrating the facts, observed –

++ The detention certificate dated 8th January, 1985 records that the petitioner as per his arm's licence had acquired another revolver on 4th April, 1979, which was sold on 14th December, 1984. As per the Baggage Rules applicable a non-tourist passenger was allowed to import as a part of his baggage without import licence but on payment of customs duty, a fire-arm, subject to the condition that the passenger should not have imported or otherwise acquired a foreign made arm of the same category during the last 10 years. Explanation thereto stipulated that revolver and pistol were considered to be of one category of fire arm and gun and rifle fire-arm of another category. A reading of the said explanation elucidates the reason why the double barrel gun was released and why the revolver could not be released after the import and detention vide detention receipt dated 8th January, 1985.

++ The petitioner was aware and conscious of the problem as to reason why the revolver had not been released. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 4th February, 1994, that they had looked into the records and the revolver in question was detained by the detention certificate as there was violation of the Baggage Rules. The petitioner had failed to furnish proof that the earlier revolver purchased by him was of Indian origin. The petitioner should have produced the same while seeking clearance of the gun or even subsequently. In these circumstances, the revolver was sold after more than one year of detention, on 18th August, 1986.

++ The petitioner has submitted that no show cause notice was issued before sale of the revolver. Our attention has been drawn to Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard, we would like to state that the revolver in question was sold under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Custom authorities in their letter dated 4th February, 1994 had rightly drawn attention of the petitioner to Instruction No.6 of the detention receipt to the effect that "if the goods are not cleared within two months of the detention or any period extended by the competent authority, action to dispose of goods under relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 would be initiated". Section 48 of the Customs Act is clearly applicable as the imported item, i.e. the revolver, is an arm defined under the Arms Act, 1959. Even with the writ petition we note that the petitioner has not filed any document or proof to show that the earlier revolver held/owned by him was of Indian make and origin.

Holding that there is no merit in the Writ Petition, the same was dismissed.

(See 2013-TIOL-668-HC-DEL-CUS)