HIGASHIMARU FEEDS INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE petitioner is an importer of fish meal and it is challenging Ext. P4 public notice dated 9,7.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Ext. P5 notification dated 17.10.2001 issued by the Central Government and Ext. P6 public notice dated 21.1.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case, are the following.

(2.) THE import of live stock to India, is governed by the provisions of Live stock Importation Act, 1898. S.2(a) of the Act defines the expression "infections or contagious disorders' as including tick pest, anthrax, glanders, farcy, scabies and any other disease or disorder, which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. S.2(b) defines live stock as "live stock includes horses, kine, camels, sheep and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette". The Parliament has amended the Live stock Importation Act of 1898 by Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001. The definition 'live stock products' has been incorporated in 8.2 of the Act as S.2(d). The said definition reads as follows: "Live stock products includes meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of poultry, pig, sheep, goat; egg and egg powder, milk and milk products, bovine, ovine and caprine, embryos, ova, semen; pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product which may be specified by the Central Government by the notification in the Official Gazette." A new Section, S.3A has been added to the Act, enabling the Central Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit import of any live stock product into the territories of India, which may be affected by any infectious or contagious disorders. In exercise of the power under S.3A, Ext. P4 notification has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, restricting the import to India live stock products, including pet food products of animals. In exercise of the power under S.2(d) read with S.3A, the Union of India notified that the live stock products shall cover products, eggs and seeds of all aquatic animals, including fish crustaceans and molasses and import of them have been made, subject to the issuance of Sanitary Import Permit. By Ext. P6 notification, the Commissioner of Customs informed all importers and Custom House Agents that import of aquatic products, like fish meal, can be made only with a Sanitary Import Permit from the competent authority and subject to clearance by the Animal Quarantine Officer, Chennai.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned notifications. The dictionary meaning of 'animal' is any living thing, other than a human being, that can feel and move, eg: a lion, bird, snake, fish or fly. Therefore, fish is also an animal. It is called an aquatic animal. S.2(d) treats any pet food product of animal origin as live stock product and it enables the Union of India to notify any other animal product as live stock product. The above amendment to the Act is not under challenge. Therefore, the Government is competent to notify any other animal product also as live stock product, even though in the ordinary sense, the same may not have any connection, whatsoever, with the live stock. In other words, the Legislature has empowered the Government to include non live stock products in the ordinary sense also among the live stock products for the purpose of this particular statute. In exercise of that power, the impugned orders Ext. P4 and P5 have been issued. So, I feel that those notifications are intra vires. The Preamble of the Act or the objects for bringing in the legislation about a century back, cannot now be pressed into service to defeat the express provisions of the Act. Only if there is any ambiguity, reliance can be placed on such aides for interpretation. But, the Parliament has willed that any other animal product can also be treated as live stock, provided the Government issue a notification and this Court is bound to respect the will of the Legislature. If Exts.P4 and P5 are valid, there is nothing wrong with Ext. P6 also. Fish meal is a product generated from the aquatic animal, fish. So, the technical contention urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted in this case. The decision of the Apex Court in Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm (supra) was concerning the concessions to farmers in the matter of electricity tariff, who are engaged in agriculture. The Apex Court has held that raising of live stock will form part of agriculture. But, fish farming may not amount to raising of live stock. Therefore, it was held that fish farmers are not entitled to get the concessional tariff available to agriculturists. The interpretation given by the Apex Court in the decision of Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm that fish is not livestock, can have no application to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.