9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na and Flora (CITES) is an international treaty made at Washington in the year 1973 with a view to regulate the international trade in specimens of selected species subject to certain control set out therein. India signed CITES on 9th July, 1974 and ratified the treaty on 20th July, 1976. Thus, India being a party to CITES, export and import of the species set out in the three appendices of the CITES are permissible only with the approval of the authorities constituted under CITES in India and subject to other laws enacted by the Government of India such as, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, etc. Thus, apart from being a party to CITES, there are several legislations enacted in India to protect the wildlife and its trade. 4.The petitioner is one such person, who in June, 2000 after obtaining the requisite permission/licence and clearance from the Government of Zambia, as a matter of hobby hunted certain animals and thereafter exported the same to Zimbabwe for processing the said animals so as to convert them into items of taxidermy/hunting trophies. Taxidermy is the Art of preparing and mounting skins of animals in life like manner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mercial premises and will not be used for any commercial purposes and that the Petitioner shall obtain clearance and certificate from the CITES authorities. Under the said licence, the Petitioner was also required to give an undertaking that at any point of time, he shall not sell or dispose of crocodile and leopard trophies imported and that he shall not in future apply for import of any look alike species into India. 7.Before importing the items of the Taxidermy/Trophies, the Petitioner by his letter dated 27th April, 2002 (page 79 of petition) had also applied to the CITES authorities in India seeking permission to import items of taxidermy/hunting trophies. By a letter dated 16th May, 2002, the Regional Deputy Director (W.R.) and Asstt. CITES Management authority in India informed the Petitioner that under Section I, Chapter I of the Import Policy, no skins of tiger or any other cat species can be permitted to be imported and similarly import of wild animals (including their parts and products) as defined in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are prohibited. It was further stated in the said letter that unless clearance from D.G.F.T. is obtained by the Petitioner, no permis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act and penalty should not be imposed under Section 111(a) of the Act. Challenging the said communication of the Regional Deputy Director, addressed to the Customs authorities dated 8-11-2002 as well as the show cause notice dated 27-11-2002 issued by the Customs authorities, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition seeking an order for quashing the said communication of the CITES and the show cause notice issued by the Customs and consequently clearance of the item imported by the Petitioner. 11.When the petition was taken up for admission, the Respondents did not dispute clearance of the items other than the item of Panthera Pardus (Leopard). Accordingly, all items other than the item of Panthera Pardus have been cleared by the Respondents. Therefore, the only issue required to be adjudicated upon in the present case is regarding the clearance of the Taxidermy item of Panthera Pardus (Leopard). Since the communication dated 8th November, 2002 addressed by CITES to the Customs, objecting to the clearance of the item of Panthera Pardus was without hearing the Petitioner, this Court by an order dated 6-1-2003 directed the Regional Deputy Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in refusing to grant permission under CITES. Mr. Diwan submitted that as regards the item of Panthera Pardus, the requisite permission from the exporting country as well as the CITES authorities situated in that country have already been obtained. Thus, when all the authorities in the exporting country and all the authorities in India have granted permission and the Petitioner fulfils the requirement of CITES the Respondent No. 4 could not have refused permission on wholly extraneous considerations. Mr. Diwan submitted that the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 4 was restricted to the provisions of CITES and under Article III of CITES, he was to ensure that the imported item is not used for commercial purposes. It was submitted that the Petitioner has already given undertaking that the items imported will not be used for commercial purposes. Under the circumstances, when the Petitioner has complied with all the provisions of CITES, the Respondent No. 4 was not justified in refusing to allow clearance of item of Panthera Pardus. Mr. Diwan submitted that the order of the Respondent No. 4 in refusing to grant permission on the ground of violation of the advance permit on 27th April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission granted by CITES Management authority, the licence granted by the Licensing Authority becomes non est and as such, the clearance of the item of Panthera Pardus cannot be permitted under the said licence. 15.Mr. Desai, further submitted that the items set out in Schedule I Part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, are prohibited for import and since Panthera Pardus appears at Item 16B of Schedule I Part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Respondent No. 4 was justified in refusing to allow clearance of the item imported by the Petitioner. Mr. Desai referred to Chapter 43 of the Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 wherein tiger cat skin are prohibited and not permitted to be imported. He then relied upon Chapter 97 of the Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 wherein stuffed animals and birds (taxidermy) are shown as a restricted item. It was submitted that the import licence granted by the D.G.F.T. was subject to the approval from the CITES authority and in the absence of any such approval, the Petitioner is not entitled to clearance of the items imported. It was submitted that in view of the violation of the Export-Import Policy, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and secondly, in the instance case, specific approval has been granted by the authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 viz. the Deputy Inspector General (WL) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and also by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur. In the circumstances, when the concerned authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 have granted permission to the Petitioner, it is not open to the Respondent No. 4 who is not an authority constituted under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to hold that there is violation of the provision of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and therefore, rejection of the application on the second ground cannot be sustained. 19.Now, coming to the rejection of the application on the third ground that there is violation of the CITES. It is seen that the application seeking approval of CITES was made by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 4 on 27th April, 2002 that is much prior to the import in September, 2002. In fact, by a letter dated 16-5-2002, the Respondent No. 4 had informed the Petitioner that unless clearance is obtained from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
