9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 said item was replaced with the following entry. "Live Pig and Pig Products (including Pig Bristles)." This was in replacement of the Notification dated 2-2-2007. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner company have imported 1566 Kilos of double boiled white bristles (pig) from China under B.E. No. 436649 dated 11-1-2007. The clearance for this consignment was rejected by the first respondent Quarantine Officer by making a reference to the Notification dated 2-7-2007 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndry, 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 same need not be acted upon. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also circulated certain report on the nature of Avian Influenza taken from fax sheet published by the World Health Organisation and downloaded from the internet. 12. He also relied upon the Notification dated 7-7-2001 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture wherein guidelines for import for such products have been mentioned in the Schedule for Notification. In paragraphs 5(1) and 5(2) of the guidelines, it is stated as follows: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 as the case may be. Vide notification - 2-2-07 SO 102(E)." Sd. dated 19-4-2007" 18. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that under the Schedule to the Notification dated 7-7-2001 issued by the second respondent, guideline No. 5 gives a direction to the authorities to make an inspection on the product and then certify the same as to whether it was free from any infection. In the present case, the Wild Life Inspector, who had examined the consignment though at random, had certified that the products are not having any infe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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 basis of a subsequent Notification dated 5-6-2007 because on the relevant date of bill of entry, there was no ban on bringing Pig Bristles as it was otherwise not objectionable. 22. Therefore, in respect of any import, what is required is a publication of Notification in the Official Gazettes and copies to be made available to the concerned without which a Notification cannot be said to have been brought into force. In this context, the judgment of this Court in Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1984 (18) E.L.T. 152 (Mad.)] was approved by the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
