The court emphasized adherence to natural justice principles, ruling that the impugned order was non-speaking and lacked justification for prohibiting the imported goods.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent refusing to grant No Objection Certificate for clearance of the petitioner's containers imported under Bill of Entry No.7095539 dated 07.12.2024.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the said order has been passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has sought for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to release the seized goods.

3. The petitioner has imported Conch Shell under Bill of Entry No.7095539 dated 07.12.2024. According to the petitioner, despite the 3rd respondent having seized the goods and the customs duty having already been paid, the consignment of the petitioner was referred to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had thereafter, referred the same to the 1st respondent for further clarification with regard to the imported goods of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per the Customs Tariff Act, there is no prohibition for importing the aforesaid goods and as per the import policy, goods are freely importable. The petitioner also claims that the goods were imported under the Indo-Srilanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) dated 02.12.2024. According to the petitioner, by total non-application of mind to the aforesaid facts, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 referred to supra.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent who has issued the impugned order and in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it is stated that the goods imported by the petitioner are prohibited goods under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as it falls under Schedule II Species as per Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to them, only due to the same, the impugned order came to be passed. Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent are extracted hereunder:

“6. It is respectfully submitted that in Tuticorin VOC Port import and export of cargo and its clearance is through ICEGATE, a single window system. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) is a statutory multi-disciplinary body established by the Government of India under the Ministry of Environment Forests and climate change (MoEF&CC). Director of MoEF&CC is the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) Management Authority and Regional Deputy Directors are designated Assistant CITES Management Authorities. In the capacity of which WCCB Regional offices advise Customs authorities in the inspection of consignments of flora and fauna as per the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 CITES and EXIM Policy governing such an item. Constitution of WCCB is as per section 38 Y and its powers and functions are mentioned u/s 38Z of the Act.

7. It is respectfully submitted that WCCB regional offices are connected to this ICEGATE and through this system, trade in flora & fauna through designated ports are monitored. Through this ICEGATE/SWIFT, B.E.No.7095539 Dated 07.12.24 was marked to WCCB and item imported was seashell Pleuroploca trapezium through Tuticorin port by the firm M/s Askar seashells, Tuticorin. Since these seashells are listed under Schedule II of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, samples were analysed by WCCB and the identity of it being a Schedule II Species as per Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 has been confirmed. The WCCB has forwarded a letter to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and also to the Superintendent of Customs informing him the same via No.5EXIM/WCCB- SR/2024/751-53 dated 16.12.2024. Based on the letter from WCCB, the provisions of Wildlife Protection Act and also taking the representations of the petitioner into consideration, the 1^st respondent arrived at the decision to return the consignment to the country of origin.”

5. It is also contended by the 1st respondent that the Wild Life Claim Control Bureau (WCCB) through their letter dated