TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts. 3.The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international treaty made at Washington in the year 1973 with a view to regulate the international trade in specimens of selected species subject to certain control set out therein. India signed CITES on 9th July, 1974 and ratified the treaty on 20th July, 1976. Thus, India being a party to CITES, export and import of the species set out in the three appendices of the CITES are permissible only with the approval of the authorities constituted under CITES in India and subject to other laws enacted by the Government of India such as, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, etc. Thus, apart from being a party to CITES, there are several legislations enacted in India to protect the wildlife and its trade. 4.The petitioner is one such person, who in June, 2000 after obtaining the requisite permission/licence and clearance from the Government of Zambia, as a matter of hobby hunted certain animals and thereafter exported the same to Zimbabwe for processing the said animals so as to convert them into items of taxidermy/hunting trophies. Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Foreign Trade Regulation Act, thereby permitting the Petitioner to import various items of Taxidermy trophies subject to the conditions set out therein. One of the conditions set out in the import licence is that the trophies will not be displayed in any commercial premises and will not be used for any commercial purposes and that the Petitioner shall obtain clearance and certificate from the CITES authorities. Under the said licence, the Petitioner was also required to give an undertaking that at any point of time, he shall not sell or dispose of crocodile and leopard trophies imported and that he shall not in future apply for import of any look alike species into India. 7.Before importing the items of the Taxidermy/Trophies, the Petitioner by his letter dated 27th April, 2002 (page 79 of petition) had also applied to the CITES authorities in India seeking permission to import items of taxidermy/hunting trophies. By a letter dated 16th May, 2002, the Regional Deputy Director (W.R.) and Asstt. CITES Management authority in India informed the Petitioner that under Section I, Chapter I of the Import Policy, no skins of tiger or any other cat species can be permitted to be im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory clauses. 10.In the light of the above objections raised by the Regional Deputy Director, CITES Management authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Imports) issued show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why items of Panthera Pardus should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed under Section 111(a) of the Act. Challenging the said communication of the Regional Deputy Director, addressed to the Customs authorities dated 8-11-2002 as well as the show cause notice dated 27-11-2002 issued by the Customs authorities, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition seeking an order for quashing the said communication of the CITES and the show cause notice issued by the Customs and consequently clearance of the item imported by the Petitioner. 11.When the petition was taken up for admission, the Respondents did not dispute clearance of the items other than the item of Panthera Pardus (Leopard). Accordingly, all items other than the item of Panthera Pardus have been cleared by the Respondents. Therefore, the only issue requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it much before the items were actually imported. As stated hereinabove, the Petitioner had applied to the Respondent No. 4 for the Export-Import Policy have granted permission for import of the item in question subject to the condition set out therein and the Petitioner has complied with all the conditions attached to the said permissions, the Respondent No. 4 was not justified in refusing to grant permission under CITES. Mr. Diwan submitted that as regards the item of Panthera Pardus, the requisite permission from the exporting country as well as the CITES authorities situated in that country have already been obtained. Thus, when all the authorities in the exporting country and all the authorities in India have granted permission and the Petitioner fulfils the requirement of CITES the Respondent No. 4 could not have refused permission on wholly extraneous considerations. Mr. Diwan submitted that the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 4 was restricted to the provisions of CITES and under Article III of CITES, he was to ensure that the imported item is not used for commercial purposes. It was submitted that the Petitioner has already given undertaking that the items imported will n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted item. It was submitted that obtaining prior permission of CITES was mandatory under the Articles of CITES and since the Petitioner has not obtained prior permission of CITES, the import is unauthorised. Mr. Desai submitted that the grant of licence under Import-Export policy was subject to the clearance from the CITES Management authority and in the absence of any such permission granted by CITES Management authority, the licence granted by the Licensing Authority becomes non est and as such, the clearance of the item of Panthera Pardus cannot be permitted under the said licence. 15.Mr. Desai, further submitted that the items set out in Schedule I Part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, are prohibited for import and since Panthera Pardus appears at Item 16B of Schedule I Part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Respondent No. 4 was justified in refusing to allow clearance of the item imported by the Petitioner. Mr. Desai referred to Chapter 43 of the Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 wherein tiger cat skin are prohibited and not permitted to be imported. He then relied upon Chapter 97 of the Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 wherein stuffed animals and birds (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground that there is violation of the provisions of the Export-Import Policy is without any merit and cannot be sustained. 18.The second ground of rejection of the application of the Petitioner on the ground that there is violation of provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is also without any merits because firstly, the Respondent No. 4 is not an authority constituted under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and secondly, in the instance case, specific approval has been granted by the authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 viz. the Deputy Inspector General (WL) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and also by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur. In the circumstances, when the concerned authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 have granted permission to the Petitioner, it is not open to the Respondent No. 4 who is not an authority constituted under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to hold that there is violation of the provision of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and therefore, rejection of the application on the second ground cannot be sustained. 19.Now, coming to the rejection ....