CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Exotic Wildlife

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 04.07.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties in Exotic Wildlife

A recent decision by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has brought significant clarity to the legal landscape surrounding the confiscation of exotic wildlife and the imposition of penalties under Indian customs and wildlife protection laws. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the implications for future enforcement and trade in exotic species.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into the alleged smuggling and transportation of exotic birds and mammals into India. Acting on intelligence, DRI officers intercepted a consignment at Kolkata’s Domestic Air Cargo Terminal in October 2018, which was booked under the name of Shri Domnic Jacob Sequeira. The consignment included 35 live birds and animals, suspected to be of foreign origin, and was intended for transport to Pune in a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle.

Subsequent searches at Mr. Sequeira’s Pune residence led to the seizure of an additional 19 exotic birds. The authorities alleged that these animals were smuggled into India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Foreign Trade Policy.

Key Seizures and Allegations

• 35 live birds and mammals seized at Kolkata, including species such as Black & White Ruffed Lemur, Marmoset, Bengal Cat, Bird of Paradise, Macaws, Hornbill, Cockatoos, Eclectus Parrots, and Grey Parrots.
• 19 live birds seized at Pune, including Love Birds, Sun Parakeet, Great Billed Parrot, and White Cockatoo.
• Mahindra Scorpio vehicle allegedly used for transportation was also seized.

The Department claimed that these animals were smuggled from Myanmar via Aizawl, Mizoram, using forged veterinary certificates and without proper import documentation.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Department’s Stand

The Department sought:

1. Absolute confiscation of all seized birds and mammals.
2. Confiscation of the vehicle used for transportation.
3. Imposition of heavy penalties on Mr. Sequeira and his associates under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Defense Arguments

The defense, led by Mr. Sequeira and others, argued:

• The birds and animals were procured domestically within India, not smuggled.
• The burden of proof for smuggling lies with the Department, as exotic species are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
• Many birds were captive-bred in India, and the Department failed to provide concrete evidence of illegal importation.
• Reliance on uncorroborated statements and assumptions was insufficient for confiscation or penalties.

Tribunal’s Findings and Final Order

The CESTAT bench, after reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, made several critical observations:

1. Burden of Proof: Exotic birds and mammals are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the onus is on the Department to prove smuggling with tangible evidence.
2. Domestic Procurement: Statements and investigation showed that the animals were handed over within India, and there was no direct evidence of illegal importation.
3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal cited previous judgments (including those from the Allahabad, Bombay, and Rajasthan High Courts) clarifying that domestic trade, possession, and breeding of exotic species are not prohibited under Indian law, and only international trade is regulated.
4. Confiscation and Penalties Set Aside: The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of all birds and mammals, ordered the release of the seized vehicle, and quashed all penalties imposed on the appellants.

Implications of the Ruling

• For Enforcement Agencies: The ruling reinforces that enforcement must be based on concrete evidence of smuggling, not mere suspicion or uncorroborated statements.
• For Exotic Animal Owners and Traders: Domestic possession, trade, and breeding of exotic species remain outside the purview of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, unless specifically notified. However, international trade continues to be regulated.
• For Legal Practitioners: The case sets a strong precedent for the burden of proof in customs-related wildlife cases and highlights the importance of due process.

Conclusion

The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision marks a significant development in the interpretation of customs and wildlife protection laws in India. By emphasizing the need for clear evidence and respecting the distinction between domestic and international trade, the Tribunal has provided much-needed clarity for all stakeholders involved in the handling of exotic wildlife.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com