Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) vs. National Rifle Association of India (2025) 34 Centax 334 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Rajesh Bindal & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Anmol Chandan, Udai Khanna, B.K. Satija, Mahindra Dubey, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ms Mithun Jain, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Umang M., Advocates, Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported arms and ammunition under licences issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.) and claimed exemption under Sl. No. 1 of Notification No. 146/94-Cus., dated 13-07-1994, as amended. The benefit of exemption was denied on the ground that the assessee had violated post-importation conditions by not using the imported goods itself and by selling them to State Rifle Associations and District Clubs for use in competitions and championships. Confiscation of the goods was also proposed under 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The CESTAT, in the impugned order, held that since the assessee worked through its constituent State and District bodies and the imported goods were used in national and international championships and competitions, neither the exemption could be denied nor the goods could be confiscated. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no case was made out to entertain the appeal against the impugned order. It was observed that Notification No. 146/94-Cus., dated 13-07-1994, did not contain any actual user condition, and there was nothing in it to suggest that the use of the imported goods by State or District Rifle Associations and Clubs for competitions and championships was not acceptable. The Court found no infirmity in the findings of the CESTAT that the imported goods were used for the intended purpose and that confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not justified. The appeal was accordingly dismissed after condonation of delay.
List of Cases Cited
- National Rifle Association of India v. Commissioner — (2025) 34 Centax 333 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Paras 3,4 ]
