REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4094-96/2010  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 27622-27624 of 2008)

Anirudh Singh Katoch                …Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Ors.           …Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. In these three appeals, by special leave, the core  

question that arises for consideration is, whether the Additional  

Commissioner of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport,  

New Delhi (Respondent no. 3) was justified in detaining  two  

duly licensed firearms which the appellant brought from United  

States of America (USA) on transfer of his residence into India.

3. The appellant—an Indian citizen—went to USA for  

further  studies  in  1984.  He  graduated  in  Computer  Science  

from Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA and worked with a  

Medical   Instrumentation   firm   there.   He   holds   licences  

for the possession of three firearms, namely, (1)  Walther PPKS  

SNW007450 (NPB Pistol)    (2)  NPB Rifle and   (3)  DBBL Gun  

under   the Arms   Act, 1959   (for short, ‘1959 Act’) and the  

Arms Rules, 1962 (for short,  ‘1962 Rules’).  Before coming to  

India,   he is   said to have   consulted the   Indian Consulate in  

San Francisco, USA   with   regard to these firearms and he  

was   told   that   he   was   allowed   to   take  his personal  

firearms    to  India  provided  he  held  valid  Indian  firearms  

licences.  The  appellant,  accordingly,  brought  the  aforesaid  

three firearms with him on transfer of his residence to India. The  

appellant arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New  

Delhi on October 1, 2000  with  his  baggage  and  firearms.  

He  was  told  at  the  customs clearance  counter  that  he  was  

permitted   only   one   firearm   under   the   Transfer  of  

Residence   Rules   and   he   had   to   obtain the   firearms  

import   licence   for   the   other   two   firearms     from  the  

2

Director   General  of  Foreign  Trade  (DGFT).   All  the  three  

firearms    were,  thus,  detained   by    Respondent No.3  and a  

detention  order  was  issued  on  October  1,  2000  recording,  

‘detained for clearance as per Rules’. Thereafter on February  

16, 2001, one of the firearms, namely, Walther PPKS.32 ACP  

Handgun  was  released  to  the  appellant  and  the  other  two  

firearms  remained  in  the  custody  of  the  custom  officials.  It  

transpires  that  the  appellant  made  an  application  with  the  

DGFT on February 1, 2001 for import of the two firearms which  

were detained by the custom officials.  On March 8, 2001, the  

appellant was informed by DGFT that as per the import policy,  

import  of  firearms  and  ammunition  is  not  permitted  except  

against a licence to renowned shooters/rifle clubs for their own  

use on the recommendation of the Department of Youth Affairs  

and Sports and since the application made by the appellant did  

not come under that category, his case has been referred to the  

Ministry  of  Home  Affairs  for  their  recommendation.  The  

correspondence seems to have ensued between the appellant  

and various authorities but the two firearms were not released.  

The  appellant  then  served  legal  notices  upon  the  Additional  

3

Commissioner  of  Customs,  IGI  Airport,  New  Delhi,   Deputy  

Director General of Foreign Trade and  Ministry of Commerce.  

In response thereto, the appellant  received  a  communication  

dated  March 26, 2001 from the DGFT informing him that he  

was entitled to bring only one firearm into India. The appellant  

thereafter  approached  Delhi  High  Court  for  quashing  the  

detention order dated October 1, 2000 and the communication  

dated March 26, 2001 and for direction to the respondents to  

release his two firearms with a further direction to the District  

Magistrate (Nainital)  to keep the licences of the two firearms  

detained by custom officials alive till such time the said firearms  

were returned to him.   

4. The respondents filed counter affidavit in opposition  

to the writ petition and pointed out that firearms fall under the  

restricted  category  of  Exim  Policy  (1997-2002)  and  as  such  

import  of  firearms is  not  permitted  except  against  an  import  

licence issued by the DGFT to renowned shooters/Rifle Clubs  

for their own use on the recommendation of the Department of  

Youth  Affairs  and  Sports.  The  respondents  submitted  that  

although import  of  firearms is not  permitted as per the Exim  

4

Policy,  yet  one  firearm  has  been  allowed  under  instructions  

dated January 5, 1988 and June 7, 1995 issued by the Ministry  

of Finance applicable to persons transferring their residence to  

India.

5. The Single Judge of  the High Court  after  hearing  

the parties dismissed the writ petition on August 1, 2003.  The  

appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the order of  

the  Single  Judge.  Two  miscellaneous  applications  were  also  

made in the appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the Letters  

Patent Appeal and disposed of two miscellaneous applications  

by a common judgment dated March 20, 2008. It is from this  

judgment that these three appeals by special leave arise.

6. Pausing here,  certain relevant statutory provisions  

may be set out.  Section 3 of the 1959 Act provides for licence  

for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. It  

reads, thus :

“S.3. Licence for acquisition and possession  of  firearms  and  ammunition— (1)  No  person  shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any  firearm  or  ammunition  unless  he  holds  in  this  behalf  a  licence  issued  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  the  rules  made  thereunder :

5

Provided  that  a  person  may,  without  himself  holding  a  licence  carry  any  firearms  or  ammunition in the presence, or under the written  authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or  for  renewal  of  the  licence  or  for  use  by  such  holder. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section  (1),  no  person,  other  than  a  person  referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have  in his possession or carry, at any time, more than  three firearms:

Provided  that  a  person  who  has  in  his  possession  more  firearms  than  three  at  the  commencement  of  the  Arms  (Amendment)  Act,  1983,  may  retain  with  him  any  three  of  such  firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from  such commencement, the remaining firearms with  the officer in charge of the nearest police station  or,  subject  to  the  conditions  prescribed  for  the  purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a  licensed  dealer  or,  where  such  person  is  a  member of  the armed forces of  the Union,  in a  unit armoury referred to in that sub-section. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2)  shall  apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member  of  a  rifle  club  or  rifle  association  licensed  or  recognized  by  the  Central  Government  using  a  point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. (4) The  provisions  of  sub-section  (2)  to  (6)  (both  inclusive)  of  section  21  shall  apply  in  relation  to  any  deposit  of  firearms  under  the  proviso to sub-section (2) as they apply in relation  to the deposit of any arms or ammunition under  sub-section (1) of that section.”

7. The  provision  of  licence  for  import  and  export  of  

arms is made in Section 10 of 1959 Act.  It reads:

6

“S.10.Licence for import and export of arms,  etc.—(1) No person shall bring into, or take out of  India by sea, land or air any arms or ammunition  unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in  accordance with the provisions of this Act and the  rules made thereunder: Provided that— (a) a person who is entitled by virtue of this Act  

or any other law for the time being in force  to have, or is not prohibited by this Act or  such  other  law  from  having,  in  his  possession any arms or ammunition, may  without a licence in this behalf bring into, or  take out of, India such arms or ammunition  in reasonable quantities for  his own private  use;

(b) a  person  being  a  bona  fide  tourist  belonging  to  any  such  country  as  the  Central Government may, by notification in  the  Official  Gazette,  specify,  who  is  not  prohibited by the laws of that country from  having  in  his  possession  any  arms  or  ammunition,  may, without  a licence under  this  section  but  in  accordance  with  such  conditions as may be prescribed, bring with  him  into  India  arms  and  ammunition  in  reasonable  quantities  for  use  by  him  for  purposes  only  of  sport  and  for  no  other  purpose.

   Explanation—For purpose of clause (b) of this  proviso,  the word “tourist”  means a person who  not being a citizen of India visits India for a period  not  exceeding  six  months  with  no  other  object  than recreation, sight-seeing, or participation in a  representative capacity in meetings convened by  the  Central  Government  or  in  international  conferences, associations or other bodies.

(2) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  proviso  to  sub-section  (1)  where  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  or  any other  officer  

7

empowered  by  the  Central  Government  in  this  behalf  has  any  doubt  as  to  the  applicability  of  clause  (a)  or  clause  (b)  of  that  proviso  to  any  person who claims that such clause is applicable  to  him  or  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  quantities  of  arms  or  ammunition  in  the  possession  of  any  person  referred  to  in  such  clause, or as to the use to which such arms or  ammunition  may  be  put  by  such  person,  may  detain the arms or ammunition in the possession  of such person until he receives the orders of the  Central Government in relation thereto. (3) xxx xxx xxx”

   8. Section 11 of the 1959 Act empowers the Central  

Government to prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette,  

the bringing into, or the taking out of India, arms or ammunition  

of  such classes and descriptions as may be specified in the  

notification.

9. 1962  Rules  have  been  framed  by  the  Central  

Government in exercise of  the powers conferred under 1959  

Act.   Rule  4  read  with  Schedule  II  specifies  the  licensing  

authorities for the purposes indicated therein. Rule 51 provides  

for application for the grant of licence.  

10. Section  79  of  the  Customs  Act,  1962,  inter-alia,  

empowers the Central Government to make rules for exemption  

from duty any article in the baggage of a passenger.  For that  

8

purpose,  Baggage  Rules,  1998  have  been  notified  by  the  

Central Government.  Rule 7 thereof provides :

“R.7. Transfer of residence.— (1) A  person  who is transferring his residence to India shall be  allowed clearance free of duty, in addition to what  he is allowed under rule 3 or, as the case may be,  under rule 4, articles in his bonafide baggage to  the extent mentioned in column (1) of Appendix F,  subject to the conditions, if any, mentioned in the  corresponding  entry  in  column  (1)  of  the  said  Appendix. (2) The  conditions  may  be  relaxed  to  the   extent mentioned in column (3) of the Appendix  F.”

11. Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and  

Regulation  Act),  1992  (for  short,  ‘1992  Act’)  empowers  the  

Central Government to make provisions relating to imports and  

exports.  Under Section 5 of 1992 Act, the Central Government  

may formulate the export and import policy by notification in the  

Official Gazette.  In exercise of the aforesaid powers vested in  

the Central Government, Exim Policy 1997-2002 was laid down  

by DGFT. Paras 4.5 and 4.7 of that Policy read as follows :

“4.5 Restricted Goods.- Any goods, the export  or import  of  which is restricted under ‘ITC (HS)  classification of Export and Import items’ may be  exported or  imported only in accordance with  a  licence issued in this behalf.

9

4.7 Licence  not  a  right.-   No  person  may  claim  a  licence  as  a  right  and  the  Director  General  of  Foreign  Trade  or  the  licensing  authority shall have the power to refuse to grant  or  renew  a  licence  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  the  Rules  made  thereunder.”

12. It  appears that the Ministry of Finance has issued  

certain  circulars  from time to  time relevant  to  the transfer  of  

residence; the two relevant Circulars in this regard are Circulars  

dated January 5, 1988 and June 7, 1995. In the latest Circular  

dated June 7, 1995, the instructions issued in earlier Circular  

dated January 5, 1988 have been reiterated. The Circular dated  

June 7, 1995 reads as follows :

“ F.No. 605/74/95-DBK Transfer of Residence Form Revision

Circular No. 63/95-Cus. Dated 7/6/95

Government of India Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue, New Delhi Subject : Transfer of Residence Form in vogue for  

claiming benefits of Transfer of   Residence under Chapter IV of the  Baggage Rules, 1994 – reg.

The  undersigned  is  directed  to  say  that  it  has  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Board  that  the   Transfer  of  Residence  Form  being  used  in  your  

10

Collectorate contains a clause that “the goods cleared  by  the  passenger  shall  not  be  sold,  displayed  or   advertised or offered for sale until their market price has   depreciated to less than 50% of the market price when  new,”  although in terms of the existing provisions, there   is no such restriction on the goods cleared as baggage  by a passenger. A copy of the Transfer of Residence   Form received with the reference is enclosed for your  ready  reference.  As  the  Baggage  (Conditions  of   Exemption) Rules, 1975 have already been rescinded,   this clause in the Transfer of Residence Form has to be   deleted to avoid confusion in the minds of passengers.

2. It  is,  therefore,  requested  that  necessary   action in the matter  may be taken immediately  under   intimation to the Board.

3. In this connection, it is pointed out that one  firearm of permissible bore is allowed to be imported by  persons  transferring  their  residence  to  India  under  Ministry’s  instructions dated 5.1.88 issued from F.No.  497/57/87-Cus. VI. Such release is permitted subject to   the condition that  the firearm so cleared shall  not  be  sold,  transferred,  loaned or  otherwise parted with,  for   consideration or otherwise, to any other person in India  during  the  life  time  of  the  person  concerned.  An  endorsement to this effect is made in the arm licence  and  the  passport  of  the  passenger  concerned at  the   time  of  clearance  of  the  firearm.  Such  endorsement   shall continue to be made by the customs authorities at   the time of clearance of the firearm in question.

Sd/-   (T.R. Kapur)

       Under  Secretary   (Cus.VI)”   

13. The  thrust  of  the  argument  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant is that on transfer of his residence, the appellant was  

entitled to bring upto three firearms into India for which he holds  

11

valid  licences.   In  this  regard,  heavy  reliance  is  placed  on  

Baggage Rules, 1998 and Sections 3 and 10 of 1959 Act.  It  

has  been  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that  the  

provisions contained in 1992 Act or the Exim Policy have no  

application.  It was urged that the Single Judge as well as the  

Division Bench erred in not properly appreciating the statutory  

provisions  and  denial  of  relief  to  him  by  the  High  Court  is  

erroneous.  

14. Section  3(1)  of  1959  Act  prohibits  acquisition,  

possession  or  carriage  of  firearms  or  ammunition  without  a  

licence  issued  in  accordance  with  1959  Act  and  the  Rules  

framed  thereunder.  Section  3(2)  puts  ceiling  on  acquisition,  

possession or carriage upto three firearms except the category  

of persons mentioned in sub-section (3). Section 10 prohibits,  

inter  alia,  import  of  arms  or  ammunition  by  sea,  land  or  air  

without  a  licence  issued  under  the  1959  Act  and  the  1962  

Rules.  Section  11  empowers  the  Central  Government  to  

prohibit import or export of arms or ammunition of such classes  

and descriptions as may be specified in the notification.  It  is  

true that prohibition contained in Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)  

12

and Section 10 is not attracted against the appellant but that  

would  not  entitle  him  to  bring  in  firearms  to  the  country  on  

transfer of his residence, import of which is prohibited. Under  

Section 5 of 1992 Act, the Central Government has formulated  

export  and import  policy (Exim Policy 1997-2002).   Para 4.5  

thereof provides that any goods, the export and import of which  

is restricted under ITC(HS) classification of Export and Import  

items may be exported or imported only in accordance  with a  

licence issued in this behalf.  Para 4.7 of Exim Policy makes a  

provision that no person may claim a licence as a right and the  

DGFT or the licensing authority shall have the power to refuse  

to grant or renew a licence in accordance with the provisions of  

1992 Act and the Rules made thereunder.  The relevant extract  

of  the ITC(HS)  classification  in  Exim Policy  1997-2002 is  as  

follows :

EXIM

Code

Item Description Policy Conditions  relating  to the Policy

Import   under  Public

Notice

93032000 Other  sporting,   hunting  or  target- shooting Shotguns,  including  combination  shotgun-rifles

Restricted Not permitted to be  imported  except  against a licence by  renowned  shooters/Rifle  Clubs for their own  use  on  the  

13

recommendation  of  the  Department  of  Youth  Affairs  and  Sports;  Government  of  India

93033000 Other  sporting,   hunting  or  target- shooting rifles

Restricted Not permitted to be  imported  except  against  a  Licence  by  renowned  shooters/Rifle  Clubs for their own  

use  on  the  recommendation of   the  Department  of   Youth  Affairs  and  Sports;   Government  of   India

        ”

15. The Division Bench of  the High Court  considered  

the provisions of  the Exim Policy (1997-2002) with  regard to  

import of firearms and recorded its conclusion thus :

“The aforesaid extract of the Exim Policy clearly  shows  that  the  import  of  sporting,  hunting  or  target-shooting  shotguns,  including  combination  shotgun-rifles  is  not  permitted  except  against  a  license  by  renowned  Shooters/Rifle  Clubs  for  their  own  use  and  that  too  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Government  of  India.  Thus, it stands clearly established that the import  of firearms, which is governed by the Exim Policy,  is  prohibited  thereunder,  except  to  the  extent  stated therein.”

We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench.

14

16. Insofar as Baggage Rules, 1998 are concerned, we  

find merit  in the contention of  Mr.  Gourab Banerji,  Additional  

Solicitor General, that the said Rules deal with import of duty  

free  articles  by  a  person  in  his  bona  fide  baggage.   The  

contention of the appellant that he is entitled to bring in more  

than one firearm because of  transfer  of  residence by relying  

upon Baggage Rules is misconceived.  The only inference that  

can  be  drawn  from  these  Rules  is  that  duty  free  import  of  

firearms is not permissible. The  Division  Bench  has  rightly  

considered  the  provisions  contained  in  Customs  Act,  1962,  

Baggage Rules, 1959 Act and Rules framed thereunder, 1992  

Act and the Exim Policy and did not commit any error in holding  

that a person is not entitled by virtue of 1959 Act or the Rules  

framed thereunder to bring into India such licensed firearms, if  

any provision of law prohibits or restricts the bringing of such  

articles.  What is important to be noticed is that in the light of  

the  Exim  Policy,  the  import  of  firearms  is  permissible  only  

against  an  import  licence  issued  by  the  DGFT to  renowned  

shooters / rifle clubs for their own use on the recommendation  

of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports and the appellant  

15

has been denied import licence because he is not covered by  

this category.  It transpires that by virtue of the Circulars dated  

January 5, 1988 and June 7, 1995, however, the appellant was  

permitted  one  firearm  but  we  do  not  intend  to  consider  the  

effect of Exim Policy on these circulars as such controversy has  

not been raised before us.  

17. All in all, consideration of the matter by the Division  

Bench appears to us to be proper justifying no interference by  

this  Court.   The  appeals,  therefore,  have  no  merit  and  are  

dismissed with no order as to costs.   

     …….…...…………………J.  (R.V. Raveendran)

                …………..…………………..J     (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi May 5, 2010.

16