Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's consignment was governed by Notification S.O. 655(E) dated 07.07.2001 or by the subsequent Notification S.O. 2666(E) dated 17.10.2014, and whether the earlier regime continued to apply to the shipment already imported before the later notification came into force. (ii) Whether the respondents could withhold the no objection certificate solely because the sanitary certificate issued by the foreign veterinary authority was not in the exact prescribed format, and whether testing in India was required to verify the absence of animal rennet and compliance with import conditions.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's consignment was governed by Notification S.O. 655(E) dated 07.07.2001 or by the subsequent Notification S.O. 2666(E) dated 17.10.2014, and whether the earlier regime continued to apply to the shipment already imported before the later notification came into force.
Analysis: Section 3A of the Livestock Importation Act, 1898 empowers regulation of import of livestock products by notification. The later notification superseding the earlier one expressly saved things done or omitted before such supersession. The consignment had already arrived before the later notification came into force, so the governing requirements had to be examined with reference to the earlier notification and the permit issued thereunder.
Conclusion: The earlier notification continued to apply to the petitioner's consignment, and the objection based on the later notification did not prevail.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondents could withhold the no objection certificate solely because the sanitary certificate issued by the foreign veterinary authority was not in the exact prescribed format, and whether testing in India was required to verify the absence of animal rennet and compliance with import conditions.
Analysis: Import of food articles remains subject to Section 25 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, while the livestock import regime requires satisfaction of sanitary conditions to protect human and animal health. The Court treated the foreign certificate, the imported product's labelling and the factual materials as insufficient to conclusively establish compliance with the Indian requirements on animal rennet and allied conditions. At the same time, it held that any remaining deficiency could be cured by sampling and testing in India, which would enable the competent authority to take a fresh decision on release.
Conclusion: The no objection certificate was not ordered to be issued outright, but the petitioner was permitted to have samples tested in India and the competent authority was directed to decide release on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by permitting fresh testing of the goods in India and requiring the authorities to decide release thereafter within a short time, thereby granting the petitioner limited substantive relief without directing immediate unconditional clearance.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later import-control notification contains a saving clause, a consignment already imported is governed by the earlier regime; and where compliance with import conditions remains uncertain, the competent authority may insist on sampling and testing before deciding on release.