2007 (6) TMI 384 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Misdeclaration of status as a zoo for duty-free clearance, classification of imported animals under CTH 9908.00, demand of duty under CTH 0106.00, confiscation of animals, penalties imposed on the company and Managing Director.

Classification of Animals and Misdeclaration:
The appellants imported sea lions and dolphins declaring themselves as a 'zoo' for duty-free clearance under CTH 9908.00. However, the department alleged misdeclaration as the animals should have been classified under CTH 0106.00, attracting duty. The key issue was whether the appellants had the status of a 'zoo' at the time of import.

Recognition as a Zoo:
The Commissioner found that the Central Zoo Authority had not recognized the appellants as a 'zoo' under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, leading to the demand of duty. The appellants argued that the Act was not applicable and highlighted their initial recognition as a 'zoo'. The dispute centered on the definition of 'zoo' and whether common parlance should apply in the absence of a specific definition under the Customs Tariff Act.

Interpretation of 'Zoo' and Common Parlance:
The Tribunal accepted that the absence of a requirement for recognition under the Wild Life (Protection) Act indicated that common parlance should define 'zoo'. The Oxford Dictionary defined a zoo as an establishment maintaining a collection of wild animals for public display, study, or conservation. The appellants' use of animals for amusement did not align with the common understanding of a zoo, leading to the conclusion that they were not a 'zoo' as per common parlance.

Confiscation, Penalties, and Redemption:
The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty under CTH 0106.00 due to misdeclaration, leading to confiscation of animals and imposition of penalties. The fine for confiscation was reduced, and the penalty on the company was decreased. However, the penalty on the Managing Director was set aside as the order lacked specific reasons for imposing it.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the Managing Director was allowed, while the appeal by the company was dismissed with reduced penalties and redemption fine. The decision was pronounced on 14-6-2007.