Replica Fire Arms cannot Discharge a projectile and are not Falls under ‘firearms’ defined under Arms Act: CESTAT Quashes Confiscation of Goods [Read Order]

The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the confiscation of replica firearms on the grounds of non-falling goods under the category of firearms which is defined under the Arms Act,1959. 

Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd, the appellant assessee filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods imported from an Overseas supplier – Denix S.A. C/Dels Bijuteers, Spain. The description, quantity, and value of the goods declared by the importer in the said Bill of Entry as per invoice. 

The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the customs duty demand and for the confiscation of goods under section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. 

Anshuman Sahni, the counsel for the assessee contended that the 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 country of Export and an undertaking from the importer that the replicas of firearms imported are incapable, even after modification, of expelling or launching a bullet or short or projectile. 

M Shukla, the counsel for the department contended that the assessee imported “Replica Fire Arms” convertible into Fire Arms” classifiable under CTH 93040000, which was restricted as per ITC (HS) Import Policy, without any license or authorization and also imported “daggers” and “swords” with blade size more than 9” without fulfillment of the requirements. 

The Bench observed that the impugned order lacks application of mind, in as much as it is verbatim the same as the order under challenge. Neither the applicability of the legal provisions particularly concerning the Arms Act and the Rules and various notifications have been considered nor any reasoning has been given with reference thereto by the Commissioner (Appeals) though being the first appellate authority.  The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) held that since the impugned order does not reflect any application of mind, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to discuss the issues on merit and quashed the confiscation of goods. 

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates