Import clearance for leopard taxidermy cannot be denied where policy, wildlife and CITES permissions were already obtained.

Import clearance for a leopard taxidermy item could not be refused on the alleged ground of breach of the Export-Import Policy, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, or CITES, because the customs/CITES authority was not the body charged with enforcing those regimes and the competent authorities had already granted the necessary permissions. The importer had also sought CITES permission before import and complied with the imposed conditions, including the undertaking that the specimen would not be used for commercial purposes. As the alleged violations were not established on the record, the refusal to clear the goods and the confiscation order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to clear the imported leopard taxidermy item and the confiscation order could be sustained on the grounds of alleged violation of the Export-Import Policy, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and CITES, and whether customs could withhold clearance for want of CITES permission.

Analysis: The customs/CITES authority was not the authority charged with enforcing the Export-Import Policy or the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the competent authorities under those regimes had already granted the necessary permissions. The petitioner had also applied for CITES permission before import and had complied with the conditions imposed, including the assurance that the specimen would not be used for commercial purposes. On the record, the alleged breach of the Export-Import Policy, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and CITES was not established, and the refusal to grant clearance on those grounds could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection of clearance and the confiscation order were quashed, and the petitioner succeeded.

---