No Confiscation of Imported Arms Supplied to Rifle Clubs | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

Case Details: National Rifle Association of India vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi (2025) 34 Centax 333 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
  • Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Ms Anjali Singh, Ms Jyoti Pal. Advs., for the Appellant.
  • Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Authorised Representative (DR), for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The National Rifle Association of India (NRAI), imported arms and ammunition between November 2005 and December 2009 under DGFT licences and claimed duty exemption under Notification 146/1994-Cus. based on certificates issued by the Sports Authority of India. After import, the goods were supplied to State Rifle Associations and District Clubs for use in shooting competitions. Customs denied the exemption, alleging that NRAI violated post-import conditions by selling the goods instead of using them itself, and held the imports liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o), along with duty demand and penalty. NRAI challenged the order before CESTAT.

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that the exemption notification only requires that the imported goods be used for national or international championships, and does not impose any actual-user condition requiring the importer itself to use them. Since the goods were used by State and District bodies for competitions, the exemption could not be denied. Further, imports made under valid DGFT licences cannot be confiscated under Section 111(d) for alleged post-import licence violations. As no condition of the notification was breached, confiscation, duty demand, and penalty were unjustified. The appeal was allowed with full relief.

List of Cases Cited

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *