http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SHEIKH MOHD.  OMER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/1970

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR  293            1971 SCR  (2)  35  1970 SCC  (2) 728

ACT: Customs  Act, 1962, s. 111(d)-"Any prohibition" if  includes restrictions-Mare imported for breeding, if pet animal.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant,  a breeder of horses imported into  India  a mare  "Jury  Maid", for purpose of  breeding.   The  customs authorities  objected on the ground that the mare  had  been imported  in contravention of the provisions of the  Imports and  Exports (Control) Act. 1947 and confiscated  the  mare. On  the questions, (i) whether the mare was a  "pet  animal" within  the meaning of that expression in  the  notification dated January 2, 1961 issued by the Government and therefore exempt  as personal baggage acd (ii) whether the  expression "prohibition"  contained  in s. 111(d) of the  Customs  Act, 1962  includes prohibition of imports Coupled with it  power to permit importation under certain conditions, HELD  : (i) The mare "Jury Maid" was not a ’pet animal’.   A pet  is  "any  animal  tamed and  fondled".   There  was  no evidence  to show that jury maid was tamed or  treated  with fondness by the appellant.  He obtained that animal on lease for certain specified purpose and in respect of that  animal he had only a business connection. (ii)The expression "any prohibition" in s. 111  (d) of  the Customs Act, 1962, includes restrictions.  Merely because s. 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, uses three different   expressions  "prohibiting",   ’restricting"   cr "otherwise  controlling,"  the  amplitude of  the  word  any prohibition  in  s. 111 (d) of the Act cannot be  cut  down. "Any prohibition" means every prohibition and restriction is one  type of prohibition.  From item (1) of Sch.  I Part  IV to  Import Control Order. 1955, it is clear that  import  of living  animals  of  all sorts is  prohibited.  But  Certain exceptions art, provided for.  But none the less the  prohi- bition continues.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 1645 of 1966. Appeals from the judgment and order dated February, 7,  1966

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 114 of 1965. A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for the appellant. B.   Sen and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In this appeal by certificate two questions of law arise namely (1) 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 36 India,  Ministry  of Commerce and Industries,  Import  Trade Control Public Notice No. 1 I.T.C.(PN)/61 dated 2nd  January 1961 and (2) whether the expression "prohibition"  contained in  S.  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. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the points in issue are not many.  They may now be stated.  The appellant, Sheikh Mohd.  Omer, as found by the High Court was a  dealer ’in  horses  especially in racing horses.  He  was  breeding horses out of mares owned by him.  He owned two stallions by name  "Pieta"  and  "Rontgen".  He claimed  to  have  had  a considerable  reputation as race horse owner and for  racing with horses bred by him races. In  September, 1964,  the appellant went to Europe.  While he wasin  Switzerland   he received  a  letter from M/s.   British  Blood-stock  Agency Ltd.,  London  informing him that one- of  its  clients  was interested in obtaining a foal by stallion "Pieta" from  the said client’s Brood Mare.  After some correspondence it  was agreed  that  the  Glasgow Stud Farm  would  lease  a  brown English  mare  to the appellant which would  be  shipped  to India  and  would be kept there pending  her  producing  two foals by the appellant’s breeding race hot-se "Pieta"  after which  the  mare will be returned to with on,,-  foal.   The appellant  returned to Calcutta on November 7, 1964 by  air. At  the Dum Dum Airport he gave a declaration  showing  that his  seven  unaccompanied bagages will follow by sea  or  by air.   ’Eventually, "Jury Maid" was shipped to  Calcutta  by s.s  ’Chinkoa" which reached Calcutta port on  December  25, 1964.   When  the appellant tried to take  delivery  of  the same,  the Customs authorities objected on the  ground  that the   mare  had  been  imported  in  contravention  of   the provisions  of the imports and Exports (Control) Act,  1947. After  due enquiry the Customs authorities  confiscated  the mare.  At this stage, it may be mentioned that when the mare came  to India, it was pregant.  After its arrival in  India it  gave: birth to a foal and thereafter it died.  The  foal given birth by it is alive. The  first question that arises for decision is  whether  by importing the mare in question the appellant contravened the provisions of the Act. Section 111 (d) of the Act provides:               "The following goods brought from a place out-               side India shall be liable to confiscation:--               (d)any   goods   which  are   imported   or               attempted to be imported or are brought within               the Indian customs               37               waters  for  the purpose  of  being  imported,               contrary  to  any prohibition  imposed  by  or               under  this Act or any other law for the  time               being in force."               "Prohibited  goods" is defined in S. 2(33)  of               the Act.  That definition reads :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             "  "prohibited  goods"  means  any  goods  the               import  or export of which is subject  to  any               prohibition  under this Act or any  other  law               for  the  time  being in force  but  does  not               include any such goods in respect of which the               conditions  subject  to which  the  goods  are               permitted to be imported or exported have been               complied with." From  this definition, it is clear that  "prohibited  goods" under the Act includes also such goods as may be imported by complying  with the prescribed conditions.  It  is  admitted that  the import of horses or mares is not prohibited  under the  Act.  Therefore the question is whether such import  is prohibited "by any other law for the time being in force." Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947’ provides :               "Powers  to prohibit or restrict  imports  and               exports.-               (1)The  Central  Government may,  by  order               published   in  the  Official  Gazette,   make               provision  for  prohibiting,  restricting   or               otherwise  controlling,  in all  cases  or  in               specified classes of cases and subject to such               exceptions, if any as may be made by or  under               the order;               (a)the  import, export, carriage  coastwise               or  shipment as ships’ stores of goods of  any               specified descripttion;               (b)the  bringing into any port or place  in               India  of goods of any  specified  description               intended  to  be taken out  of  India  without               being  removed from the ship or conveyance  in               which they are being carried." In  exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 of the  Imports and’  Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Government  of  India promulgated  an order known as the "Imports Control"  Order, 1955  dated  7th December, 1955.  Clause 3(1)  of  the  said order reads               "Restriction  on Import of Certain  Goods.-(I)               Save  as otherwise provided in this order,  no               person   shall   import  any  goods   of   the               description  specified in Schedule  1,  except               under, and in accordance with, a licence or  a               customs   clearance  permit  granted  by   the               Central Government or by any officer specified               in Schedule II." 38 The relevant Entry is to be found in Item I of Schedule I in part IV which is as follows:-- SL.  Name  of Article              Item of First Schedule to No.                                Indian Triff Act 1934. (1)      (2)                                 (3)           Part IV 1.   Animals,                      living all I and I (1).      sorts. By  the  notification  dated January  2,  1961  referred  to earlier  certain  exemptions  were  provided  for   personal baggage  of a passenger.  One of the exemptions  granted  is for clearance of one dog, pet animal and birds in a  limited number subject to certain conditions. Now we shall go back to the question whether "Jury Maid" can be  considered  as  a pet animal.  A  pet  is  explained  in Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English as "any  animal tamed and kept as favourite or treated with fondness." The shorter Oxford Dictionary explains that word thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             "Any animal that is domesticated or tamed  and               kept as a favourite or treated with  fondness,               esp. applied to a lamb reared by hand." The  same word is explained in Chamber’s  Twentieth  Century Dictionary thus "Any animal, tamed and fondled." 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.  Rejecting the contention of the appellant that "Jury Maid" is a pet animal, the  learned judges  of  the appellate bench of the Calcutta  High  Court observed :               "There  is no such species of animal known  as               "Pet  animal".  What happens is  that  certain               kind   of   animals   or   birds   are   often               domesticated  and  when  a  particular  person               becomes fond of such an animal or bird it  may               be said to have become a "pet" of that  person               and  may  be called a "pet animal".  It  is  a               subjective  expression.  In the present  case,               the  mare "Jury Maid" was not the "    pet" of               any   particular  person.   So  far   as   the               appellant  is concerned,-he had not even  seen               the mare when it arrived in India.  It  cannot               be  said  that  he became fond of  it  at  any               relevant  point  of time.  In actual  life  we               find  that men have at times fond  of  strange               animals like               39               lions, tigers and even crocodiles.  It was not               intended  to make the baggage rules a  warrant               for  transforming  passengers  ships  into   a               Noah’s Ark.. . ." We  entirely  agree with those observations and  reject  the contention  of  the  appellant that "Jury Maid"  was  a  pet animal. This takes us to the question whether by importing the  mare "Jury Maid" the appellant contravened S. 111(d) read with s. 125  of  the Act.  It was urged on behalf of  the  appellant that   expression  "prohibition"  in  s.  111(d)   must   be considered  as a total prohibition and that expression  does not  bring within its fold the restrictions imposed  by  cl. (3)  of the Imports Control Order, 1955.  According  to  the learned  Counsel  for the appellant cl. (3)  of  that  order deals  with  the restrictions of import  of  certain  goods. Such  a  restriction cannot be considered as  a  prohibition under  s. 111 (d)          I of the Act.  While  elaborating his  argument the learned Counsel invited our  attention  to the  fact  that while s. 111 (d) of the Act  uses  the  word "prohibition",  s.  3 of the Imports and  Exports  (Control) Act,  1947  takes in not merely prohibition of  imports  and exports,   it  also  includes  "restrictions  or   otherwise controlling"  all  imports and exports.   According  to  him restrictions  cannot  be  considered  as  prohibition   more particularly  under the Imports and Exports  (Control)  Act, 1947 IIs that statute deals with "restrictions or  otherwise contfolling"  separately  from  prohibitions.   We  are  not impressed with this argument.  What cl. (d) of s. 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 III that section applies to every type of prohibition".  That prohibition may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

be complete or partial.  Any restriction on import or export is  to  an  extent  a  prohibition.   The  expression   "any prohibition" in s. III (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 includes restrictions.   Merely  because  s. 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  s.  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  (1)  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 ire provided for.   But rone the less the prohibition continues. In  the result this appeal is dismissed with costs.   Y.  P. Appeal dismissed. 40