Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Jama Corporation P. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Oct 1, 2003
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Delhi
Seat of court
New Delhi
Judge
Badar Durrez Ahmed.
Reference number
2004 IAD Delhi 132, 107 (2003) DLT 684
Language
English
Subject
Wild species & ecosystems
Keyword
Offences/penalties Wildlife products Protected plant species Protected animal species Protected fish species Enforcement/compliance Protection of species
Abstract
The petitioner was aggrieved by the letter dated 23.6.2003 whereby it has been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest his request of import of Caiman Crocodiles Fuscus skin from USA could not be granted. The petitioner had obtained a permit from the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) valid up to 17.10.2003. The contention of petitioner is that if he imported raw hides skin of the very same reptile he would have to comply with the requirement of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as well as CITES. However, the product in questions is “tanned skin” or the said reptile which is allowed to be imported free and without any condition attached to it. The respondent sought to justify his arguments relying upon the import licensing Notes which reads:"An application for grant of a license for import of Animals, Birds and Reptiles (including their parts and products) may be made in the form given in Appendix-8 of the Handbook of Procedures Vol. 1. to the Director General of Foreign Trade along with the recommendations of the Chief Wildlife of the State concerned". Since the words “including their parts and products” are mentioned, therefore, it would include skins. The judge is of the view that the Import Licensing Notes cannot extend the scope of specific entries of the Exim Codes in the main body of the provisions. The first requirement that the expression “crocodiles” appearing in Item 1-D relates specifically to these two species only. The inclusive definition only clarifies that the expression “Crocodiles” relates not just to fresh water crocodiles but also salt water crocodiles which have also been subsequently specified by name i.e. Crocodilus Porosus. As such the item that is sought to be imported would not be a “wild animal” under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Therefore, the Import Licensing Note would not apply to the import in question. The Court held that no “NO Objection Certificate” from the Wild Life Authorities” is required under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as such the goods be released by the Customs Authorities subject to the petitioner complying with all other applicable conditions under the Customs Act.
Full text
COU-156249.pdf