Import control restrictions apply to a breeding mare; no mandatory redemption fine option on confiscation.

An imported mare leased for breeding was held not to fall within the "pet animal" exemption, because that exemption applies to an animal kept as a personal pet and ordinarily carried in baggage. The import therefore remained subject to import control restrictions requiring the relevant licence or customs clearance permit. Where goods were imported without complying with that licence condition, the resulting prohibition was treated as a prohibition for customs purposes, making the goods liable to confiscation. In such cases, Section 125 did not impose a mandatory duty to offer redemption on payment of fine, and the customs authority was not bound to grant that option.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported mare was a "pet animal" within the baggage/public notice exemption and therefore outside import trade control restrictions; (ii) whether, on confiscation of goods imported without the required licence, the customs authority was bound to give an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): whether the imported mare was a "pet animal" within the baggage/public notice exemption and therefore outside import trade control restrictions.

Analysis: The exemption for pet animals was held to contemplate an animal kept as a pet of a particular person and ordinarily associated with personal baggage, not an animal imported as part of a business arrangement for breeding purposes. On the facts, the mare was leased for breeding, was not the appellant's pet, and its import was governed by the import control regime requiring a licence or customs clearance permit. The baggage rules and public notice did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: The mare was not a "pet animal" within the exemption and its import remained subject to import trade control restrictions.

Issue (ii): whether, on confiscation of goods imported without the required licence, the customs authority was bound to give an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: A prohibition requiring prior compliance with a licence condition was treated as a prohibition for the purposes of confiscation. Goods imported without satisfying that condition were "prohibited goods" within the customs scheme, so the officer adjudging confiscation had discretion under Section 125 in the case of prohibited goods and was not obliged to offer redemption on payment of fine. The licence requirement was itself a statutory condition, and non-compliance brought the goods within the confiscatory provisions.

Conclusion: The customs authority was not bound to offer an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the confiscation and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on import which operates as a prohibition subject to fulfilment of a licence condition is a prohibition for customs confiscation purposes when the condition is not satisfied, and in such cases Section 125 does not confer a mandatory right to redemption by fine.

---