(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner is that he is alleged to have imported meat and bone meal which is a prohibited item according to the customs authorities. He is also alleged to have mis- declared the same in the documents submitted at the time of importation including the bill of entry and other related documents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what he has imported is not meat and bone meal per se but a product called RIGENERA (Fertilizer containing mixture of nitrates and phosphates). He submitted that the packing list shows the imported item as such. The same is the position in the bill of entry and the invoices. The learned counsel took me through copies of the packing list, bill of entry and invoice which are at pages 49, 50 and 51 of the paper book. He also indicated that the petitioner had a registration certificate in Form B issued by the authorities permitting him to import NP (Nitrate and Phosphate) Fertilizers and the source of the import is also indicated as Italy. He pointed out that there is a book titled as Organic Manures published by Indian council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi in which at page 6 bone meal has been specified.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute as to whether the product imported by the petitioner is meat and bone meal or it is Rigenera containing meat and bone meal . He further submits that Rigenera by definition contains meat and bone meal and rigenera has not been prohibited as such.
(3.) These contentions are controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the Customs Authorities. He submits that the petitioner had earlier also imported 700 metric tonnes of the same product which has been released on furnishing a bond. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had imported meat and bone meal and mis-declared it as fertilizers. Be that as it may, these are disputes which shall be sorted out upon adjudication.