Import restrictions under customs law can amount to prohibition, and a commercially used mare does not qualify as a pet animal.

A mare imported for a commercial breeding arrangement was not a "pet animal" for the baggage exemption, because it was not shown to be domesticated or kept as a personal favourite, so the exemption did not apply. The term "prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was held to include not only absolute bans but also restricted or conditional import controls under other law, including the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Import Control Order. On that footing, import in breach of those restrictions was unlawful and liable to confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported mare could be treated as a pet animal within the baggage exemption notification; (ii) Whether the expression "prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes restrictions on import imposed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Import Control Order, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the imported mare could be treated as a pet animal within the baggage exemption notification.

Analysis: The expression "pet animal" was understood as an animal domesticated or tamed and kept as a favourite or treated with fondness. The mare had been obtained on lease for a specific commercial breeding arrangement, was not shown to have been tamed or fondled, and there was no basis to treat it as a personal pet for the appellant.

Conclusion: The mare was not a pet animal and did not qualify for the exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes restrictions on import imposed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Import Control Order, 1955.

Analysis: The expression "any prohibition" in Section 111(d) was held to be of wide amplitude and to cover every type of prohibition, including partial prohibition and restrictions. Since import of living animals was controlled under the Import Control Order, 1955, import contrary to those restrictions attracted confiscation under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The expression "prohibition" in Section 111(d) includes import restrictions, and the import was contrary to law.

Final Conclusion: The import was held to be unlawful and liable to confiscation, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, the word "prohibition" includes not only absolute bans but also restricted or conditional prohibitions imposed by any other law in force; goods imported in breach of such restrictions are liable to confiscation.

---