2008 (3) TMI 174 - HC - Customs

Permission for clearing the consignment of imported Pig Bristles was refused - it is clear that the Notification dated 2-2-2007 and Customs circular dated 12-11-2007 as well as the clearance by other ports will clearly show that the Pig Bristles are not prohibited from being imported - Quality certificate, Immunisation Certificate etc. prove that there was no objection with reference to the specified consignment - respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take delivery of the items

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the refusal to clear the consignment of Pig Bristles based on the Notification dated 2-2-2007.
2. Interpretation of subsequent Notifications and their impact on the import of Pig Bristles.
3. Requirement of Sanitary Import Permit (SIP) for the import of Pig Bristles.
4. Justification of the Quarantine Officer's actions and the examination of the consignment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the refusal to clear the consignment of Pig Bristles based on the Notification dated 2-2-2007:
The writ petitioner, a proprietory concern, was aggrieved by the Quarantine Officer's order dated 19-4-2007, which refused permission to clear the consignment of Pig Bristles due to an outbreak of Avian Influenza in China. The petitioner argued that the Notification dated 2-2-2007 by the Ministry of Agriculture only prohibited "live pig and pig meat products" and did not include Pig Bristles. The refusal was based on the interpretation that Pig Bristles were included in the term "pig products."

2. Interpretation of subsequent Notifications and their impact on the import of Pig Bristles:
The Government of India issued multiple Notifications within a short period, causing ambiguity. The Notification dated 5-6-2007 explicitly included "Pig Bristles" in the prohibited items. However, the latest Notification dated 1-11-2007 amended the prohibition to exclude "processed pig bristles." The court noted that the Union of India had shifted its stand multiple times without fully disclosing the reasons.

3. Requirement of Sanitary Import Permit (SIP) for the import of Pig Bristles:
The respondents argued that under Section 3A of the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, the Central Government had the power to restrict the import of all livestock products, including Pig Bristles, unless a Sanitary Import Permit (SIP) was obtained. The petitioner did not have an SIP for the imported Pig Bristles, which was another ground for refusal.

4. Justification of the Quarantine Officer's actions and the examination of the consignment:
The petitioner produced a bill of entry with an endorsement from the Wild Life Inspector dated 17-4-2007, stating no objection to the import of Pig Bristles. However, the Quarantine Officer counter-endorsed on 19-4-2007, refusing clearance due to disease outbreaks in China. The court found that the Quarantine Officer did not conduct an inspection as required by the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. The petitioner also provided certificates from the country of origin, stating that the Pig Bristles were disinfected and free from harmful substances.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders. It directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to take delivery of the consignment covered by B.E. No. 436649 dated 11-4-2007 after complying with other formalities in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the refusal based on the Notification dated 2-2-2007 was unjustified as Pig Bristles were not explicitly included in the prohibited items at that time. The subsequent Notifications clarified the position, and the latest Notification allowed the import of processed Pig Bristles. The court also noted the inconsistency in the respondents' actions, as similar consignments were cleared at other Customs offices.