Update: I got through to An Post today who were able to confirm that this isn't a question of payment, that the stock was siezed because of what it is. Below is a copy of the appeal I have submitted to the revenue commissioner today (with some details removed for obvious reasons

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the seizure of my parcel XXXXXXXX, containing one rifle body, which was seized on 11th September 2025 pursuant to Section 34 of the Customs Act 2015 and deemed liable to forfeiture under Section 17 of the Customs Act 2015 (Seizure Reference: XXXXXX).

I request the release of this item for the following reasons:

1. Lawful ownership and purpose

• I hold a valid Firearms Certificate (No. XXXXXXX) issued by An Garda Síochána, authorising possession of rifles for lawful personal use.
• The seized item was ordered directly from Boyds Gunstocks, 25376 403rd Avenue, Mitchell, SD 57301-5402, USA.
• It is specifically manufactured to fit a Sako A7-M rifle, of which I am the licensed owner under my Firearms Certificate.
• The rifle body is therefore intended solely for lawful personal use under the certificate already granted to me.

2. Nature of the item

• The item seized is a rifle stock/body, which constitutes the furniture of a firearm rather than a mechanical or operational component.
• It does not affect the firing mechanism, chambering, or control of ammunition.

3. Relevant legal precedent

• In Michael Rochford v Revenue Commissioners (High Court, 19 January 2021), presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan, the court ruled that certain firearm accessories which do not constitute component parts of a firearm are not liable to forfeiture under the Firearms Acts or Customs law.
• This ruling is directly applicable to my case: a rifle stock/body is functionally analogous to the accessories considered lawful in Rochford.

4. Statutory and legal argument

• Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1925 defines “firearm” and “component parts,” with the emphasis on parts essential to the operation of the firearm (barrel, breech, trigger, bolt, etc.). A rifle stock/body is not included in this definition.
• Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925 requires licensing for firearms, but does not restrict the import of accessories or furniture that do not alter the mechanical operation of a firearm.
• Sections 34 and 17 of the Customs Act 2015 empower Revenue to seize prohibited or restricted goods; however, as the item in question is not a prohibited or restricted good, the seizure and claim of forfeiture are without legal basis.
• In combination with the Rochford precedent, it is clear that a lawful, non-operational accessory like a rifle stock/body cannot be treated as a component liable to forfeiture.

5. Request for release

• In light of the above, I respectfully request that Revenue release the seized rifle stock/body immediately.
• I am happy to provide any additional documentation or proof of lawful ownership as required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and the release of my property.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX



I'll continue to update this thread as this all plays out

Tom

Valid point. I used the word Body as that was the terminology they used in their initial contact

No they initially requested the cert, then it was detained afterwards. I had a phonecall with the customs officer handling the case today. He said that he couldn't say yes or no at this point but that I had put forward a very strong argument. Hopefully should be hearing in the next few days.

I know, and I agree. That said, I think it's a bit like dealing with airport security. Right or wrong they can and will make your life very inconvenient so I'm being polite and patient.

Oh and I've contacted Country Sports Ireland and they're willing to step in if necessary. But we'll try the friendly path first