2017 (2) TMI 139 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Re-Export of Crocodile Goods

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus Luxury Lifestyle Trading India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing re-export of goods made from specific crocodile varieties covered by the Wild Life Act without confiscation or ... Confiscation - Import of prohibited item - 6 articles made of “Crocodylus Porosus leather” - “Crocodylus Porosus” is listed in Schedule-I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as per the provisions of import policy, import of wild animal and its parts/products are prohibited - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Entrack International Trading (P) Ltd. [2005 (5) TMI 226 - CESTAT, NEW DELH], where it was seen that the crocodiles of variety at S.No.2 & 3 are not covered by wildlife Act. However, Sl.No.1 of the list is covered - In the instant case goods made from crocodiles of variety at Sl.No.1 are covered by Wildlife Act and are prohibited. The order-in-original permitted re-export of these items. No confiscation was ordered in order-in-original. The Revenue had not challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the Revenue cannot now seek confiscation of these goods. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. Issues:Import of goods made from crocodile leather, interpretation of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, applicability of CITES permits, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The case involved the import of articles made of crocodile leather by M/s. Luxury Lifestyle Trading India Pvt. Ltd. The Wild Life Regional Office (WLRO) refused clearance for certain articles made from 'Crocodylus Porosus' leather due to its listing in Schedule-I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The original adjudicating authority did not confiscate the goods but allowed re-export without a fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal along with a stay application.2. The Revenue argued that goods made from prohibited species listed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are subject to absolute confiscation and penal action under the Customs Act, 1962. They relied on a Tribunal decision involving python skin wallets. However, the respondent's counsel cited precedents where goods like watch straps made from ostrich, calf, and alligator leather were allowed for import based on authenticated CITES permits and absence of restrictions under the Wild Life Protection Act.3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the law and previous decisions. It was noted that certain crocodile varieties were not covered by the Wild Life Protection Act, while others were prohibited. The Tribunal differentiated between the varieties of crocodiles imported and those listed under the Act, emphasizing that certain items were freely importable under specific entries. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of CITES certificates from the country of origin in determining import restrictions.4. The Tribunal concluded that the goods made from crocodiles of specific varieties covered by the Wild Life Act were prohibited, leading to the order permitting re-export without confiscation. Since the Revenue did not challenge the original order before the Commissioner (Appeals), they were not allowed to seek confiscation at a later stage. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the stay application was disposed of.In summary, the judgment addressed the complexities of importing goods made from crocodile leather under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized the importance of specific species classifications, CITES permits, and adherence to import regulations to determine confiscation and penalties, ultimately upholding the decision to allow re-export without additional sanctions in this particular case.