9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Quarantine Officer in passing an order dated 19-4-2007 wherein and by which permission for clearing the consignment of Pig Bristles was refused on the ground of outbreak of Avian Influenza in the People's Republic of China. The consignment was in respect of a Bill of Entry No. 436649 dated 11-4-2007. 3. The petitioner claims to be a trader in supply of Processed Pig Bristles to the manufacturers of paint brushes since August 2006. It is stated that all the manufacturers of paint brushes procure the Pig Bristles from various parts of the world including the People's Republic of China. The Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, by a Notification dated 2-2-2007, prohibited the entry of "live pig and pig meat products" along with some other products. Thereafter, the Government of India vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry, by a further Notification dated 13-3-2007 issued similar Notification prohibiting the entry of live pig and pig meat products. In both the Notifications, the prohibited items were only pigs and pig meat products and import restriction for entry into India was placed. 4. However, subsequently, on 5-6-2007, by a Notification No. S.O. 881(E), the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be taken and each time, the Government of India had taken decision only on the basis of materials available to them. 10. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is claimed that in terms of Section 3A of the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, the Central Government, has power to restrict the import into India of all livestock products which includes pig and only by getting a Sanitary Import Permit [SIP] issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, such an import can be made by any importer. It is stated that the Pig Bristles imported do not have the SIP and also in the light of the Notification dated 2-2-2007, the term Pig Bristles will also be included in the term pig products. 11. With reference to the subsequent Notification dated 5-6-2007 it only removed the ambiguity in the earlier Notification dated 2-2-2007. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the two Notifications and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the absence of the word 'Pig Bristles' found in the Notification dated 2-2-2007. Even though the petitioners have produced the Quality Certificate issued by the authorities from the country of origin, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the previous Notification and it is not an introduction of a new product, viz., Pig Bristles. 15. According to the learned ASGI, the term 'live pig and pig products' includes all parts of a pig and, therefore, even without inclusion of the product in the subsequent Notification, the impugned order can be justified. But, however, the learned ASGI had no answer when confronted with the latest Notification dated 1-11-2007 wherein Processed Pig Bristles are exempted from the ban on imports. 16. At this juncture, Mr. B. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that when the petitioner produced the bill of entry, the Wild Life Inspector made an endorsement dated 17-4-2007 on it, which reads as follows: "Examined the consignment randomly. No objection to the import of Pig Bristles vide BE No. 436649 dated 11-4-2007." Sd. Wild Life Inspector dated 17-4-2007 " 17. But, whereas the first respondent without any justification, made a counter endorsement dated 19-4-2007 and wrote as follows: "The consignment cannot be allowed to enter India keeping in view the disease outbreaks (NPAI) in China. The consignment may be sent back to China or Destroyed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave to be made and if so made, the intention of the Notification dated 2-2-2007 was not to include Pig Bristles as it is neither a Pig nor a pig product and it is only a waste and the subsequent Notification dated 5-6-2007 is a fresh Notification identifying Pig Bristles as a separate item. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the November 2007 Notification is taken as a clarification, then certainly, it permits the import of Pig Bristles without any prohibition. He also submitted that once it is liable to be imported, the first respondent had not made any separate examination but merely went by a general observation that the country of origin was affected by Avian Influenza and what was required here is the examination of products by him before granting no objection. 21. In the present case, the products have been examined by the Wild Life Inspector, who had found nothing objectionable and, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that when the Notification dated 2-2-2007 was in force and as there was no ban on the import of Pig Bristles, the petitioner had invested huge amounts and imported the consignment. The same cannot be sent back on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
