2017 (6) TMI 145 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - Meat - requirement of sanitary import permit for import of meat - Gazette of India Notification dated 7th July, 2001 issued by the Department of Animal and Husbandry of Ministry of Agriculture - Held that - It may be stated that the Gazette of India is the public document and the restriction as aforesaid imposed was in public domain from 7th July 2001. Therefore in absence of permit from Animal and Husbandry against the imports stated at the outset, the restriction imposed by law was violated by the importer and the persons and agencies connected with such import. Appellants deliberately imported the offending goods without the required permit and cleared the same. Accordingly that became smuggled goods in terms of section 2(39) of the CA, 1962 - restricted goods being imported without permit and such goods became smuggled goods, all the appeals are dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of meat without a sanitary import permit.
2. Confiscation and penalty for importers and shipping agencies.
3. Show-cause notice issued after the filing of Bills of Entries.
4. Compliance with import regulations and laws.
5. Violation of the Live-stock Importation Act and Customs Act.
6. Dismissal of appeals and confirmation of adjudication order.
7. Request for investigation by Chief Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of importing meat without a sanitary import permit as required by the Gazette of India Notification dated 7th July, 2001. The Tribunal notes that the restriction on importing meat was clearly outlined in the notification, and the failure to produce the necessary permit resulted in the violation of the law. The Tribunal emphasizes that the goods imported without the required permit are considered smuggled goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Tribunal considers the arguments presented by the importers and shipping agencies regarding the timing of the trade notice issued by the Commissionerate. The appellants argue that since the import of meat occurred before the issuance of the notice, confiscation and penalty should not apply. However, the Tribunal rules that the violation of import regulations, as specified in the Gazette notification, takes precedence over the timing of the notice.

3. Another issue raised pertains to the show-cause notice being issued after the filing of Bills of Entries. The CHA and other appellants argue that this timing should exempt them from facing penalties. The Tribunal acknowledges this grievance but ultimately upholds the decision that the violation of import regulations is the primary concern, regardless of the timing of the notice.

4. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with extant laws and regulations governing the importation of livestock and livestock products. It highlights the provisions of the Circular No. 43/2001-CUS and emphasizes the necessity of adhering to the requirements set forth by the DGFT and other specified agencies for the importation of live animals and livestock products.

5. In light of the violations of the Live-stock Importation Act and the Customs Act, the Tribunal dismisses all appeals and confirms the adjudication order. The decision is based on the finding that the imported goods were considered smuggled due to the lack of the required permit from the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying.

6. Lastly, the Tribunal makes a request for an investigation by the Chief Commissioner to address the gravity of the violation and prevent similar incidents in the future. This request underscores the need for deterrent measures to ensure compliance with import regulations and to prevent the recurrence of such violations.