Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs(Port), ... vs Shri Kishan Kumar Kejriwal on 4 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. Cus.Ap.149/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.Kol/Cus/CKP/421/08 dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Shri Kishan Kumar Kejriwal
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Chakraborty, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 04.12.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- 04.12.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby the goods i.e. seashells imported by the Respondent is set aside. Revenue filed this Appeal on the following grounds :-
1. As per Import Licensing Notes (2) of the Chapter 03 'Import of Wild Animals (including their parts and products) as defined in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is prohibited.
2. The Wild Life Authorities the competent authority to implement the said Act, on examination of goods, recommended the goods for confiscation, as import of the above species is prohibited as per Import Policy for violation of W L (P) Act' 72. Necessary action to be taken against the party was also recommended.
3. The observations of Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) in Order-in-Appeal no.KOL/CUS/CKP/421/08 dated 21.11.2008 that there is no restriction on import of such sea shells, leave apart prohibition; that the appellant could import these goods without any restriction or license; that Wild Life (P) Act' 72 'regulates wild life and other species and plants in India, that this Act is in no way concerned with the import or export of wild life, etc., that the lower authority misdirected himself in applying this act to the imports made by the appellant; are not proper factually and legally.
3. Contention of Revenue is that as the goods in question are prohibited under the Wild Life (Protection) Act '72 therefore are liable for confiscation.
4. The contention is that Revenue wants to confiscate the goods on the ground that the goods in question are covered under Schedule 1 & 4 of Wild Life (Protection) Act '72 hence are prohibited.
5. The contention of the Respondent is also that goods covered under Schedule 1 & 4 of the Wild Life Act and are classifiable under 0307 of the Tariff Headings are not prohibited as per Import Export Policy. The contention is also that Wild Life (Protection) Act prohibits only hunting of wild animals specified therein within India only.
6. I find the Revenue is only relying upon the opinion given by the Wild Life Authorities. I find that the goods in question are classifiable under 0307 of the Customs Tariff regarding which there is no dispute and as per Import Export Policy there is no restriction in respect of import of such goods. In the main ground of the Revenue is that the Wild Life Authority is the Competent Authority to implement Wile Life (Protection) Act and the Authority recommended the confiscation of the goods hence liable for confiscation. I find that the Import Export Policy will govern the conditions restrictions of the import export of the goods and as per the Import Export Policy the goods as classifiable are not restricted or prohibited goods hence I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the Appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) sd/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.Cus.Ap.149/09