By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 09, 2017: WHEN meat was imported into India by the appellant under Bills of Entry dated January/February 2005 those were not supported by sanitary import permits as notified in the Gazette of India Notification dated 7th July 2001 by the Department of Animal Husbandry of Ministry of Agriculture. It was made public on that date that meat imported to India shall be allowed only against a sanitary import permit from the above Authority.

The Appellants are aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs ordering confiscation of the goods and imposing penalties.

In appeal before the CESTAT, it is submitted that the Trade notice was issued by Customs Commissionerate on the above subject only on 10.03.2005 indicating that the restrictions were imposed. However, since the import of meat was made prior to that date, the imports should not undergo confiscation and penalty. So also, although samples were taken by Customs for testing, nothing contrary was proved. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Shiv KripaIspat Pvt. Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MUM-LB to support their claim.

The Bench extracted the Trade Notice dated 10.03.2005 and observed -

"6. It may be stated that the Gazette of India is the public document and the restriction as aforesaid imposed was in public domain from 7 th July 2001. Therefore in absence of permit from Animal and Husbandry against the imports stated at the outset, the restriction imposed by law was violated by the importer and the persons and agencies connected with such import. Appellants deliberately imported the offending goods without the required permit and cleared the same. Accordingly that became smuggled goods in terms of section 2 (39) of the Customs Act, 1962. Import of meat was meant for human consumption and that ought to have been made in accordance with law as notified. Violation thereof made the goods confiscable. The goods having been imported without permit importers fails to get any benefit of the cited decision.

7. In view of the factual position that restricted goods being imported without permit and such goods became smuggled goods, all the appeals are dismissed and adjudication order is confirmed."

Nevertheless, the CESTAT instructed the Chief Commissioner to investigate as to how the consignments were cleared for home consumption and take deterrent measures to prevent recurrence of such incidences.

(See 2017-TIOL-1936-CESTAT-MUM)