Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (6) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aring themselves to be zoo and classifying the animals under CTH 9908.00 for the purpose of duty-free clearance. These imports were from Bulgaria. After duty-free clearance, the animals were used for performance and shows by the importers for amusing the public against payment of fee. Later on, after investigations, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai issued a show-cause notice dated 6-11-1998 to M/s. APRL and their Managing Director (appellant in Appeal No. C/l3/2000) alleging that they had misdeclared themselves to be zoo with intent to evade payment of duty as applicable to live animals classifiable under CTH 0106.00. The notice demanded duty of Rs. 45,71,951/- from M/s. APRL in respect of the animals covered by the two Bills of Ent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eclaration and invoked the larger period of limitation for recovering duty from M/s. APRL at the rates applicable to CTH 0106.00. On these facts, the short question arising for consideration is whether M/s. APRL had the status of a zoo at the time of the subject imports. 3. Learned Commissioner in the impugned order found that the Central Zoo Authority [CZA1 under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 had not recognized M/s. APRL as a zoo and, on this basis, he proceeded to confirm the demand of duty against them. The appellants have challenged this decision on the ground that the Wild Life (Protection) Act is not applicable to this case. Without prejudice to this ground of the appeal, they have pointed out that the CZA had initially r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n to the public and includes a circus and rescue centres but does not include an establishment of a licensed dealer in captive animals. She submits that no zoo could be operated without being recognized by the CZA. In the instant case, though the CZA had initially recognized the appellants as zoo under Section 38H of the above Act, it derecognized them subsequently. According to learned SDR, where the term zoo was not defined under the Customs Tariff Act, it was permissible for the department to adopt its definition available under the statute governing the subject. Accordingly, she supported the impugned order, wherein M/s. APRL were found to be not a zoo recognized under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 4. After giving careful consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Customs (Air Cargo Complex) in his letter dated 21-7-1998 addressed to the Additional Inspector-General of Forests (Wild Life) narrates how the appellants used the animals for live show of performance, as follows :- The show lasts for about an hour (1/2 hour each for the Dolphins and Sea Lions). The environment has a carnival atmosphere with loud music and the show is slickly compered and choreographed and includes the animals performing several maneuvers and tricks such as singing , dancing playing football and basket ball and balancing balls on their noses, fetching plastic rings, pulling a boat with a passenger and several other tricks to entertain and amuse the audience. All these activities are carried out under the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee clearance. By this conduct, they had rendered the animals liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Customs Act. Only 5 sea lions were alive when the impugned order was passed. Learned Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 150 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of these animals. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the value of the sea lions, we reduce the fine to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). It goes without saying that M/s. APRL are liable to pay duty on both the consignments in terms of CTH 0106.00. Learned Commissioner has rightly demanded this duty by invoking the larger period of limitation on the ground of misdeclaration suppression. Where duty has not been levied on account of wil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates