1970 (9) TMI 36 - SC - Customs

Whether on the facts of this case the mare Jury Maid can be considered as a pet animal within the meaning of that expression in the notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industries Import Trade Control Public Notice No. 1-I.T.C. (PN)/61 dated 2nd January 1961? Whether the expression prohibition contained in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) includes prohibition of imports coupled with a power to permit importation under certain conditions? Held that - There is no evidence to show that Jury Maid was tamed. That apart the Jury Maid was not fondled or treated with fondness by the appellant. He obtained that animal on lease for certain specified purpose. In respect of that animal he had only a business connection. We entirely agree with those observations and reject the contention of the appellant that Jury Maid was a pet animal. What clause (d) of Section 111 says is that any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by any law for the time being in force in this country is liable to be confiscated. Any prohibition referred to in that section applies to every type of prohibition . That prohibition may be complete or partial. Any restriction on import or export is to an extent a prohibition. The expression any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 includes restrictions. Merely because Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 uses three different expressions prohibiting restricting or otherwise controlling we cannot cut down the amplitude of the word any prohibition in Section 111(d) of the Act. Any prohibition means every prohibition. In other words all types of prohibitions. Restriction is one type of prohibition. From Item (I) of Schedule I Part IV to Import Control Order 1955 it is clear that import of living animals of all sorts is prohibited. But certain exceptions are provided for. But none the less the prohibition continues. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the mare "Jury Maid" can be considered a "pet animal" under a specific notification.
2. Whether the expression "prohibition" in Section 111(d) of the Customs Act includes import restrictions under another law.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of a mare named "Jury Maid" by a horse dealer for breeding purposes. The appellant claimed the mare should be considered a "pet animal" under a government notification exempting personal baggage imports of pets. However, the court rejected this claim, stating that the appellant did not have a personal or fond relationship with the mare, as required for a pet designation. The court emphasized that the term "pet animal" is subjective and does not apply in this commercial context.

2. The appellant was charged with violating Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, which confiscates goods imported contrary to any prohibition. The appellant argued that the restrictions under the Imports Control Order, 1955, should not be considered a prohibition under Section 111(d). The court disagreed, ruling that the term "prohibition" in Section 111(d) encompasses all types of import restrictions, including those specified in the Imports Control Order. The court clarified that restrictions are a form of prohibition and upheld the confiscation of the mare due to the violation of import regulations.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the mare importation breached the Customs Act due to the broader interpretation of "prohibition" to include import restrictions. The court's decision highlights the importance of compliance with import regulations and the expansive scope of prohibitions under the law.