2017 (2) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used to give NOC for clearance of 6 articles (two briefcases and 4 shoes) which were made of "Crocodylus Porosus leather" on the ground that "Crocodylus Porosus" is listed in Schedule-I of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as per the provisions of import policy, import of wild animal and its parts/products are prohibited. The original adjudicating authority did not confiscate the said articles for violation of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. However, allowed to re-export of the goods without imposing any fine in lieu of confiscation. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the importer under Section 111 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for respondents rely on the impugned order. He argued that the Tribunal had granted benefit to watch straps made of ostrich, calf and alligator leather in the case of Entrack International Trading (P) Ltd., - 2006 (205) ELT 217, which has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court as reported in 2010 (250) ELT 166 (Del). Learned Counsel argued that they have produced authenticated cities permit issued by authorities in Italy. He further argued that goods covered by chapter 42 and 64 are freely importable. 4. We have gone through the rival arguments. We find that the decision in the case of Entrack International Trading (P) Ltd. was given on the following grounds: 3. When the appeal came up for hearing today, both sides took us through the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f CITES allowing the export from its country on the ground that these items are not restricted, insistence upon additional certificate by the authorities under the Wild Life Protection Act is meaningless in the facts of this case. Insofar as demand of the appellant to produce country of origin certificate to check the origin of Ostrich is concerned, the respondent is right in the submission that neither at the adjudication stage, when the order in original was passed, nor at the two subsequent appellate stages, such a certificate was sought. The appellant cannot take this kind of plea in this appeal for the first time. We, thus, are of the opinion that this question is rightly decided by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent." In the ....