Tribunal Orders Return of Exotic Animals

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the return of the seized exotic birds and animals to the appellant within seven days. The Tribunal emphasized that domestic trade and possession of exotic birds and animals are legal and not governed by the Customs Act or the Wildlife Protection Act. The Revenue failed to establish smuggling allegations with concrete evidence, and mere suspicion cannot justify confiscation and penalties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Absolute confiscation of exotic birds and animals.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act.
3. Legality of domestic trade and possession of exotic birds and animals.
4. Burden of proof regarding smuggling allegations.
5. Applicability of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Customs Act, 1962, to exotic birds and animals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Absolute Confiscation of Exotic Birds and Animals:
The appellant contested the absolute confiscation of 192 exotic birds and animals seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the suspicion of smuggling. The appellant argued that the birds and animals were purchased domestically from local suppliers, Golu and Monu, who confirmed sourcing them within India. The authorities failed to provide evidence that these exotic species were smuggled into India. The Tribunal noted that the exotic birds and animals were purchased domestically, and there was no proof of smuggling provided by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to support allegations of smuggling.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act:
The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellant, which was later reduced to Rs. 3,00,000 by the Commissioner (Appeal). The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence of smuggling. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which held that domestic trade in exotic birds and animals is not prohibited and that there is no statutory presumption of smuggling for exotic species not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act.

3. Legality of Domestic Trade and Possession of Exotic Birds and Animals:
The Tribunal highlighted that domestic trade, possession, and breeding of exotic birds and animals are not governed by the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, or the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Chandra vs. UOI & Ors. clarified that CITES governs only international trade and not domestic trade. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Anil Naidu vs. UOI & Ors. also supported the view that domestic trade and possession of exotic species are not restricted. The Tribunal concluded that domestic trade in exotic birds and animals is legal and does not attract the provisions of the Customs Act.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding Smuggling Allegations:
The Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish smuggling allegations. The exotic birds and animals were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, and thus, there was no presumption of smuggling. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence of smuggling and relied on unsubstantiated statements. The Tribunal emphasized that mere suspicion cannot justify confiscation and penalties.

5. Applicability of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Customs Act, 1962, to Exotic Birds and Animals:
The Tribunal referred to multiple judgments, including those of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which held that exotic birds and animals are not covered under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, apply only to international trade and not to domestic trade, possession, or breeding of exotic species. The Tribunal concluded that the exotic species in question do not attract the provisions of the Customs Act or the Wildlife Protection Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the return of the seized exotic birds and animals to the appellant within seven days. The Tribunal emphasized that domestic trade and possession of exotic birds and animals are legal and not governed by the Customs Act or the Wildlife Protection Act. The Revenue failed to establish smuggling allegations with concrete evidence, and mere suspicion cannot justify confiscation and penalties.

---