2015 (3) TMI 1134 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Orders on Leopard Trophy, Requires Application to Scientific Authority

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and various orders issued by CITES and Customs Authority. The respondent was directed to apply to ... Import of prohibited goods - The first respondent herein wanted to import into India a trophy of one stuffed leopard which he shot in Zambia. Leopard is a protected and prohibited species under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and also under the Convention of International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Therefore, requisite permission under the aforesaid provisions is needed to import such a trophy. Held that:- What flows from the conjoint reading from the aforesaid provisions is that before import of any specimen of species included in Appendix I, prior import permit of Scientific Authority and Management Authority is required and before such a permit is given, the opinion of Scientific Authority as well as the Management Authority on particular aspects is required. Insofar as the Scientific Authority is concerned, it would look into the matter from two angles, namely, that the import is not detrimental to the survival of the species involved and further the proposed recipient is suitably equipped of house and care for it. Insofar as the Management Authority is concerned, it is to satisfy itself that the specimen is not to be used for primary commercial purposes. The High Court while observing that the only function of the Management Authority was to ensure that ‘specimen’ is not to be used for commercial purpose looked into the function of Management Authority alone. Error is committed by glossing over the function of the Scientific Authority. This resulted in passing the impugned directions which are clearly erroneous. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, is not sustainable. We may record at this stage that after the High Court had pronounced the judgment, respondent No. 1 got the aforesaid item cleared from the Customs and is in possession thereof as of now. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that appropriate course of action would be to permit respondent No. 1 to apply to the Scientific Authority for necessary permission in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Issues Involved:1. Legality of importing a stuffed leopard trophy under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and CITES.2. Validity of permissions granted by DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden.3. Role and jurisdiction of CITES in granting import permissions.4. Compliance with conditions imposed by DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden.5. High Court's interpretation of CITES' role and jurisdiction.6. Appropriate course of action for the respondent to retain the trophy.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Importing a Stuffed Leopard Trophy:The first respondent sought to import a stuffed leopard trophy into India, which is protected under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and also under the Convention of International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Importing such a trophy requires requisite permissions under these provisions.2. Validity of Permissions Granted by DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden:The respondent's application for import was initially rejected by the Regional Deputy Director, Wild Life Protection. Subsequently, the Joint Director, DGFT, granted permission in the form of a license, subject to certain conditions, including obtaining clearance from CITES. The High Court concluded that the respondent had the requisite permissions from DGFT and the Chief Wildlife Warden, thus allowing the import.3. Role and Jurisdiction of CITES in Granting Import Permissions:CITES raised a query regarding the circumstances under which the permission was granted, emphasizing its obligation to regulate the export and import of species listed in Appendix-I of CITES. CITES refused to grant the permission, stating that the import/export of such species should be restricted to prevent their extinction and should not be used for commercial purposes.4. Compliance with Conditions Imposed by DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden:The permissions granted by DGFT and the Chief Wildlife Warden were conditional upon obtaining approval from CITES. Since CITES had not granted permission and had issued a show cause notice, the conditions mentioned in the approvals were not met. Therefore, the High Court's conclusion that the respondent had valid permissions was erroneous.5. High Court's Interpretation of CITES' Role and Jurisdiction:The High Court erred in concluding that CITES had no role to play and that its only function was to ensure the imported item was not used for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court clarified that CITES' role includes ensuring that the import is not detrimental to the survival of the species and that the proposed recipient is suitably equipped to house and care for it. The High Court overlooked the function of the Scientific Authority under CITES.6. Appropriate Course of Action for the Respondent to Retain the Trophy:Given that the respondent had already cleared the item from Customs and was in possession of it, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to apply to the Scientific Authority for necessary permission. The Scientific Authority is to consider the application and pass a speaking order after giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard. If the order is in favor of the respondent, he can keep the trophy; otherwise, he must surrender it to the Customs Authorities. The respondent retains the right to challenge any adverse orders.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, the order dated 17-1-2003 by CITES, the order dated 16-5-2002, and the show cause notice dated 27-11-2002 issued by the Customs Authority. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the respondent to seek permission from the Scientific Authority within a specified timeframe.