1966 (2) TMI 94 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mare "Jury Maid" qualifies as a "pet animal" under Clause 4 of the Import Trade Control Public Notice No. 1-ITC (PN)/61 dated 2nd January 1961.
2. Whether the Customs authority was required to give the appellant an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the mare "Jury Maid" qualifies as a "pet animal" under Clause 4 of the Import Trade Control Public Notice No. 1-ITC (PN)/61 dated 2nd January 1961.
The appellant claimed that the mare "Jury Maid" was imported as a "pet animal" and thus should be exempt from import trade control restrictions. The court examined the definition of "pet animal" and concluded that the mare did not qualify as such. The importation was considered a business deal rather than a personal pet, as the mare was leased for breeding purposes and not owned by the appellant. The court emphasized that "pet animals" typically refer to animals like dogs and cats that are domesticated and kept with fondness by individuals. Therefore, the mare did not meet the criteria of a "pet animal" under Clause 4 of the Public Notice, and the importation required an import trade control license, which the appellant did not possess.

Issue 2: Whether the Customs authority was required to give the appellant an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant argued that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs authority was obligated to offer an option to pay a fine instead of confiscating the mare. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. It was determined that the importation of the mare without a license constituted a violation of the import trade control restrictions, making the mare "prohibited goods." The court clarified that "prohibition" includes both absolute prohibition and prohibition subject to conditions. Since the appellant did not fulfill the condition of obtaining a license, the mare was deemed prohibited. Therefore, the adjudging officer had the discretion to confiscate the mare without offering an option to pay a fine.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Customs authority's decision to confiscate the mare without providing an option to pay a fine. The mare "Jury Maid" did not qualify as a "pet animal," and the importation without a license was in violation of the import trade control restrictions. The appellant's arguments were not substantiated, and the confiscation order was deemed lawful.