2010 (12) TMI 470 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported goods - Prohibited goods - The goods in question are classifiable under 0307 of the Customs Tariff regarding which there is no dispute and as per Import Export Policy there is no restriction in respect of import of such goods - In the main ground of the Revenue is that the Wild Life Authority is the Competent Authority to implement Wile Life (Protection) Act and the Authority recommended the confiscation of the goods hence liable for confiscation - Find that the Import Export Policy will govern the conditions restrictions of the import export of the goods and as per the Import Export Policy the goods as classifiable are not restricted or prohibited goods - Hence find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of sea shells imported under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order that set aside the confiscation of sea shells imported by the Respondent. The grounds for appeal included the prohibition of importing wild animals under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Wild Life Authorities recommended confiscation of the goods, stating they were prohibited under the Act. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) noted that there was no restriction on importing such sea shells and that the Wild Life (Protection) Act did not regulate import or export. The Revenue argued that the goods were prohibited under Schedules 1 and 4 of the Act, thus justifying confiscation.

The Respondent contended that sea shells covered under the Act and classified under 0307 of the Tariff Headings were not prohibited as per the Import Export Policy. They argued that the Act only prohibited hunting of wild animals within India. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed classifiable under 0307 of the Customs Tariff, with no dispute regarding classification. Import Export Policy did not restrict the import of such goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue relied solely on the opinion of the Wild Life Authorities for confiscation recommendations. Import Export Policy governed import/export conditions, and since the goods were not restricted or prohibited under the policy, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that the goods were not prohibited under the Import Export Policy despite the recommendations for confiscation by the Wild Life Authorities. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning confiscation decisions with the applicable import/export regulations rather than solely relying on opinions from specific authorities.