Wildlife clearance and CITES compliance for imported watch straps did not justify confiscation after a bona fide document omission.

Import of watch straps made of ostrich, calf and alligator leather was held not to require a further Indian wildlife permit or no-objection certificate where the species had no corresponding entry under the Wild Life Protection Act, the relevant import heading treated the goods as freely importable, and valid CITES documentation had been issued by the country of origin. Omission of 25 alligator watch straps from the Bill of Entry was also held not to justify confiscation, as the omission was found to be a bona fide documentary mistake supported by prior regular imports, exporter correspondence, and the goods' otherwise free importability. The tribunal's clearance order was sustained and release of the consignment on duty payment was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether import of watch straps made of ostrich, calf and alligator leather required an import permit or no-objection certificate from the wildlife authorities in India notwithstanding production of a CITES certificate; (ii) whether the omission of 25 alligator watch straps from the Bill of Entry justified confiscation of the consignment.

Issue (i): whether import of watch straps made of ostrich, calf and alligator leather required an import permit or no-objection certificate from the wildlife authorities in India notwithstanding production of a CITES certificate.

Analysis: The goods were treated by the revenue as restricted on the footing that they attracted the Wild Life Protection Act and CITES. The Court found that the species involved did not have corresponding entries under the Wild Life Protection Act and that the relevant import heading treated watch straps as freely importable. It further held that where the country of origin had issued CITES documentation permitting export and the goods were not otherwise restricted in India, insistence on an additional Indian wildlife permit was unwarranted on the facts.

Conclusion: The requirement of a further wildlife authority permit or no-objection certificate was not made out, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the omission of 25 alligator watch straps from the Bill of Entry justified confiscation of the consignment.

Analysis: The Court accepted the explanation that the omission arose from a mistake in the exporter's documents and not from any attempt to clandestinely remove the goods. It noted the prior course of regular imports, the small value of the omitted pieces, the correspondence showing the exporter's acknowledgment of the mistake, and the fact that the goods were otherwise freely importable. On that basis, confiscation was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable and the omission did not warrant adverse action against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the tribunal's order in favour of clearance of the goods was sustained, and the assessee was entitled to release of the consignment on payment of customs duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are not shown to be restricted under the applicable wildlife law and are supported by valid CITES documentation from the country of origin, additional Indian wildlife clearance cannot be insisted upon; a bona fide documentary omission in the Bill of Entry, by itself, does not justify confiscation when the goods are otherwise freely importable.

---