Legal principle

Live exotic animals seized from domestic premises away from the customs barrier are not 'goods' under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, and Customs/DRI officers have no power to seize them there, such matters being governed by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Court decision

The High Court rejected the DRI's Section 482 CrPC petition, upholding the Sessions Court's grant of interim custody to accused No.4: the seized live exotic animals, admittedly not notified by the Central Government and not falling within 'goods' under Section 2(22), could not be seized by customs officers away from the point of entry or exit, and the petitioner authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction.

Facts

Acting on specific intelligence that three passengers on Flight 6E76 from Bangkok (22.01.2023) were smuggling live exotic animals, DRI Bengaluru officers raided accused No.4's Bengaluru residence on 25.01.2023 and seized numerous exotic birds and animals, alleging violation of Section 3(3) of the FTDR Act, 1992 r/w the Customs Act and liability for confiscation under Section 111. Accused No.4 was arrested and later released on bail. The trial court rejected his Section 451 CrPC custody application, but the Sessions Court in revision granted him interim custody of the animals. DRI challenged the Sessions Court order through this Section 482 CrPC petition before the Karnataka High Court.

Key provisions

• Section 110, Customs Act, 1962 — Seizure of goods, documents and things
• Section 2(22), Customs Act, 1962 — Definitions
• Section 108, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents
• Section 3(3), The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports.