Supreme Court orders destruction of accumulated Shark Fins stock due to lack of legal use

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition regarding the accumulated stock of Shark Fins, emphasizing the lack of technology for legal utilization and the burden placed on the petitioner due to procurement during an export ban. The court ruled that indefinite retention of the perishable stock without a clear plan was unjustified. As the petitioner failed to provide a specific timeframe for domestic use, the court ordered destruction of the goods under customs supervision if no clearance for permissible domestic use was sought within three weeks.

---

---

Issues: Review petition regarding accumulated stock of Shark Fins for permitted domestic use or destruction.

The review petition was filed concerning the direction given in a previous judgment regarding the accumulated stock of Shark Fins. The Supreme Court had disposed of a Special Leave Petition related to the same matter, allowing the petitioner to present arguments for continued possession of the stock before the High Court in a recall petition. The petitioner sought to utilize the unprocessed dried Shark Fins for high-value raw material in the collagen industry, but the technology for such usage was still under development, leading to uncertainty regarding the timeline for legal utilization of the stock in India.

The High Court had previously allowed the petitioner to either use the stock for domestic purposes or destroy it in an environmentally friendly manner within a specified timeframe. The petitioner expressed concerns about the costs associated with retaining the stock in India without the option to export it, as the export of Shark Fins was prohibited by government policy upheld by the courts. The indefinite retention of the perishable stock without a clear plan for utilization was deemed unjustified by the court.

Despite the petitioner's efforts to explore potential high-value uses for the Shark Fins, such as in the collagen industry, the lack of available technology for extraction and the petitioner's preference for more profitable options within India led to the dismissal of the review petition. The court noted that the procurement of the Shark Fins during an export ban, in the hope of a policy change, placed the burden of accumulation on the petitioner. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the product and the administrative costs involved in retention, the court ruled that indefinite retention could not be permitted.

As the petitioner failed to provide a specific timeframe for utilizing the stock for permitted domestic use, the court dismissed the review petition. The court ordered that if the petitioner did not seek clearance for permissible domestic use within three weeks, the goods would be destroyed under customs supervision in an environmentally friendly manner.

---