Qamruddin Khan vs Collector Of Customs on 16 September, 1985
8. The other argument put forth by the Counsel was that the parrots were pets and not zoo animals and were permissible under the Baggage Rules. This contention is untenable because there is no such category as pets. As has been observed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Omar v. Collector of Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 16), what happens is that certain kind of animals or birds are often domesticated and when a particular person becomes fond of such animals or birds, it may be said to have become a "pet" of that person. In this instance, in the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, whose order is not contested by the appellant, the appellant has stated that the parrots had been brought by him for breeding purposes and for local sale. His intention clearly is commercial and these parrots in the circumstances, cannot be described as the pets of the appellant. As for their import, as baggage, it is observed that under ITC PN No. 34/78 dated 16-5-1978 under the subject "Import of goods as personal baggage" issued by the Import Trade Control Authorities, it has been laid down in para 7 that clearance of domestic pets like cats and birds in a limited number may be allowed as baggage. The appellant in this case has not shown that he was such a parrot lover as to keep 15 of them as pets, besides his own admission that he had brought them for commercial purposes. The import, therefore, required an import licence or CCP which the appellant did not possess, and according to the Policy at the relevant time, the import of such birds was banned except by the Government recognised zoos.