REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTORversusZAVARAY S. POONAWALA & ORS.

                     [2015] 4 S.C.R. 381


              REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR                             A

                               v.
            ZAVARAY S. POONAWALA & ORS.

               (Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2003)                     B
                      MARCH 26, 2015

          [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

     Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Schedule I -               c
Protection of prohibited species - Stuffed leopard -
Respondent seeking permission to import into India a
trophy of one stuffed leopard - Refusal of permission by
CITES - However, High Court holding that the authorities
which were required to give permission had accorded due            D
permission to respondent and as such CITES had no locus
to entertain the application or to reject it - Sustainability of
- Held: Not sustainable - Conditions mentioned in the
approval granted by the DGFT as well as Chief Wildlife
Warden, were not met by respondent - In the absence                E
thereof it cannot be treated that there were any proper or
valid approval/permission given by DGFT or by Chief
Wildlife Warden to enable the respondent to import the
trophy of stuffed leopard into India - Further, before import
of any specimen of species included in Appendix I, prior           F
import permit of Scientific Authority and Management
Authority is required and before such f} permit is given, the
opinion of Scientific Authority as well as the Management
Authority on particular aspects is required, which was not         G
obtained - Convention of International Trade on
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) -
Arts I, fl, /II and Appendix /.

                             381                                   H
382      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A      Disposing of the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1 Apart from many conditions imposed by
  DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden, the most material
  condition, which has been ignored by the High Court,
B was that those permissions were subject to the
  approval of the CITES and insofar as the CITES is
  concerned, it had not given any permission. On the
  contrary it had first issued letter dated 1.11.2002 which
  was treated as the show cause notice and thereafter, it
C passed the order dated 17.1.2003 specifically refusing
  the permission. Thus, the conditions mentioned in the
  approval granted by the DGFT as well as Chief Wildlife
  Warden, were not met by respondent no.1 and in the
  absence thereof it cannot be treated that there were
D any proper or valid approval/permission given by the
  DGFT or by the Chief Wildlife Warden which could
  enable respondent no.1 to import the aforesaid item
  into this country. [Para 11] [388-D-G]

 E    1.2 Before import of any specimen of species
  included in appendix I, prior import permit of Scientific
  Authority and Management Authority is required and
  before such a permit i~ given, the opinion of Scientific
  Authority as well as the Management Authority on
F particular aspects is required. The Scientific Authority
  would look into the matter from two angles, namely,
  that the import is not detrimental to the survival of the
  species involved and further the proposed recipient is
  suitably equipped of house and care for it. The
G Management Authority is to satisfy itself that the
  specimen is not to be used for primary commercial
  purposes. [Para 30] [397-A-D]

      1.3. The High Court while observing that the only
H function of the Management Authority was to ensure
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                  383
               POONAWALA & ORS.

that 'specimen' is not to be used for commercial              A
purpose looked into the function of Management
Authority alone. Error is committed by glossing over
the function of the Scientific Authority. This resulted in
passing the impugned directions which are clearly
erroneous. Matter is to be placed before the Scientific       B
Authority and it is this Authority which has to form an
opinion as to whether the import will or will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species involved. This
becomes extremely important to carry out the objects
of the said conventions read with the fundamental             C
principles stipulated in Article II thereof. The judgment
of the High Court, therefore, is not sustainable. The
judgment of the High Court is set aside for the same
reason. The order of 17.1.2003 passed by the CITES,
                                                              0
Order dated 16.5.2002 as well as show cause notice
dated 27.11.2002 given by the Custom Authority under
Section 124 of the Customs Act is set aside. After the
High Court had pronounced the judgment, respondent
no.1 got the said item cleared from the Customs and is        E
in possession thereof as of now. In such
circumstances, appropriate course of action would be
to permit respondent no.1 to apply to the Scientific
Authority for necessary permission. The Scientific
Authority, shall consider the application and pass            F
speaking order after giving opportunity of being heard
to respondent no.1. In case order passed is in favour
of respondent no.1, he would be allowed to keep the
trophy with him. In case order passed goes against
respondent no.1, he would surrender the trophy to the         G
Custom Authorities. This would be subject to any rights
which respondent no.1 would have in law, to challenge
the orders passed by the Scientific Authority or CITES.
[Paras 31, 32, 33] [397-D-H; 398-A-G]
                                                              H
384         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      7130 of 2003.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2003 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
B 3146 of 2002.

          P. S. Patwalia, ASG, S. Wasim Qadri, Meenakshi
      Grover, Nidhi Diwan, Anil Katiyar, for the Appellant.

      Ajay S. Majithia, Rahul Pandey, Dr. Kailash Chand, B.
C Krishna Prasad, for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           A.K.SIKRl,J. 1. The first respondent herein wanted to
D     import into India atrophy of one stuffed leopard which he
      shot in Zambia. Leopard is aprotected and prohibited
      specie under Schedule I of the Wild Life(Protection)
      Act, 1972 and also under the Convention of International
 E    Tradeon Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
      (CITES). Therefore, requisitepermission under the aforesaid
      provisions is needed to import such atrophy. Respondent
      No.1 had, in fact, applied for such permissions, thedetails
      whereof and the outcome thereof will be mentioned at a later
 F    stage,at th~ relevant place.
                   I
           2. To put it in nutshell here, the CITES had· refused
      to grant the' permission. However, the High Court vide
G     impugned judgment dated 28.04.2003 has come to the
      conclusion that' the authorities which were required to
      give the permission had accorded due permission to
      the respondent no.1 and further that in such circumstances
      CITES had no locus to entertain the application or to
H     reject it. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Present
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                      385
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

appeal, via grant of special        leave,   arisesout of the     A
aforesaid judgment.

    3. Now, some facts in detail:

     Respondent No.1 hunted certain animals in Zambia in B
June, 2000. No doubt, this hunting was with due permission
taken from the Government of Zambia. Thereafter, he
exported the hunted animals to Zimbabwe                   for
processing them into items 6f taxidermy hunting trophies. C
Respondent No. 1 claims that he had complied with the
local laws prevailing in Zambia as well as Zimbabwe for
the aforesaid purposes. One of the items, with which we
are concerned, is the trophy of stuffed leopard. He wanted to
bring this trophy into India.                                 D

      4. It is a matter of record that leopard is a protected
and prohibited specie under Schedule I of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
It is also treated as an endangered specie at international       E
level. Therefore, for import of such a trophy into India,
various statutory or legal permissions are required to be
taken.
                                                              F
     5. Respondent No.1 for import of the aforesaid trophy of
stuffed leopard made his first application on 27.4.2002 to
the Regional Deputy Director, Wild Life Protection (WLP).
This application was, however, rejected by the Regional Dy.
Director (WLP) vide communication dated 16.5.2002.         It G
was stated in this letter by the Dy. Director that as per
condition no.5 of letter issued by the Dy. Inspector
General, Wild Life (W.L.) vide his reference dated
9.10.2001 respondent no.1 was to obtain clearance H
386         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     and certificate from Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT)
      and CITES, wherever required and in the absence of any
      such permission no approval could be granted by the Dy.
      Inspector General (W.L.).
 B         6. On 23.7.2002, permission was granted by the Joint
      Director, DGFT. Permission was granted in the form of a
      license. This license was, however, issued subject to certain
      conditions stipulated therein. Condition no.4 thereof, with
c     which we are concerned, reads as under:

           "The applicant to obtain the clearance and certificate
           from DGFT and CITES Authorities wherever required"

D          7. It would be pertinent to mention here that after
      the aforesaid permission was granted by the Jt. Director,
      albeit conditional, CITES wrote a letter dated 8.11.2002
      raising a query as to under what circumstances such a
      permission was granted. CITES had taken the position
 E    that it is under obligation to regulate the export and import
      of species as set out in Appendix I of the CITES.The
      Authority constituted under the CITES is charged with the
      responsibility of granting approvals under CITES insofar
 F    as imports in the Western Region are concerned. As per
      CITES, the species which are set out in Appendix-I of the
      Convention, their import and export is to be restricted
      inasmuch as the spirit of the prohibition against import/
G     export/trade of trophies of prohibited and protected animals
      is that it is reprehensible to hunt and display endangered
      species which are fast vanishing from the earth. Such
      animals and trophies should not be made objects of
      aggrandizement and display in homes and commercial
H     establishments.
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                      387
          POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

     8. On CITES apprising the DGFT with the aforesaid A
position in law, DGFT sprung into action and issued the
show cause notice to respondent no.1 under Section
124 of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of the
aforesaid trophy sought to be imported by it. The defence 8
of respondent no.1 was that it is the Chief Wildlife
Warden under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, who
was competent authority to grant the permission and
respondent no.1 had the permission of the said authority
granted to him vide letter dated 11.4.2002.               C

     9. After the aforesaid show cause notice was issued
by the Custom Authorities, respondent no.1 filed the writ
petition in the High Court, as mentioned above, under             D
Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of CITES'
letter dated 8.11.2002 as well as show cause notice
issued by the Customs Authorities under Sec.124 of the
Customs Act. In the writ petition, interim orders were
passed by the High Court directing Regional Dy. Director          E
CITES to treat the communication dated 8.11.2002 as the
show cause notice and pass order after hearing respondent
no.1. Pursuant to this direction the Dy. Director, CITES
heard respondent no.1 and passed the orders dated                 F
17.1.2003, thereby rejecting the request of respondent
no.1 and refusing the permission for clearance of the
item in question. Respondent no.1 amended the writ
petition and included challenge to the orders dated
17.1.2003 as well, passed by Dy. Director of CITES.               G

     10. After hearing the matter finally, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition on two counts: in the first ·place
it is observed that the competent authorities to grant the H
388       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 4 S.C.R.


A permissions were DGFT and the Chief Wildlife Warden
  and respondent no.1 had the requisite permissions from
  these two authorities. Secondly, in the opinion of the High
  Court, CITES had no role to play and did not have any
8 locus to examine the issue of permission. As per the
  High Court, the only role of the CITES is to see that the
  imported item is not used for commercial purposes.

       11. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length,
c we are of the opinion that High court fell into error on both
  the counts. Insofar as permissions of DGFT and Chief
  Wildlife Warden are concerned, we have already noticed
  above that both these permissions were conditional. Apart
  from many conditions imposed, the most material condition,
0
  which has been ignored by the High Court, was that those
  permissions were subject to the approval of the CITES
  and insofar as the CITES is concerned, it had not given
  any permission. On the contrary it had first issued letter
E dated 1.11.2002 which was treated as the show cause
  notice and thereafter, it passed the order dated
  17 .1.2003 specifically refusing the permission. Thus, the
  conditions mentioned in the approval granted by the DGFT
F as well as Chief Wildlife Warden, were not met by
  respondent no.1 and in the absence thereof it cannot be
  treated that there were any proper or valid approval/
  permission given by the DGFT or by the Chief Wildlife
  Warden which could enable respondent no.1 to import
G the aforesaid item into this country.

      12. With this, we advert to the role and jurisdiction of
  CITES which it has to play in such circumstances, we find
H that is all stated in the convention which was signed at
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                  389
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

Washington DC on 3.3.1973 and amended at Bonn on A
22.6.1979. It is not in dispute that India became signatory
of the aforesaid international convention item in 1976.

     13. Before embarking the exact nature of function and
role to be played by CITES, we deem it necessary to state     B
the background and the objective with which the
Convention was signed at global level.

     14. As a result of indiscriminate killing of the animals C
and birds by human beings, either for its flesh or for trade
or as a matter of hobby, several species of animals/birds
have virtually become extinct. To curb the ecological
imbalance caused by the ruthless killings of the animals
and birds various legislations have been enacted by D
several countries worldwide, to protect the lives of the
endangered species of animals and birds and also curb
the international trade in live animals/birds or their products.

     15. Saving wildlife is a core responsibility of E
mankind. Animal populations are disappearing at an
alarming rate. Saving endangered species (plants and
animals) from becoming extinct and protecting their wild
places is crucial for our health and the future of our F
children. Man has produced a thousand a,_nd one inventions
while observing nature. Think of Leonardo da Vinci, who
drew flying machines as he watched the flight of bats. In
the area of human health, animals and plants often show us G
the way to stay in shape. As species are lost it impacts the
possibility of future discovery and advancement. The
impacts of biodiversity loss include clearly into fewer new
medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and
greater effects from global warming. In nature, everything H
390       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A is interconnected. Unfortunately, we often have very little
  idea of all the repercussions involved in the disappearance
  of a single animal population in a corner of a forest,
  swamp or river. Unrecognized benefits of maintaining
8 biological diversity are those services we receive when
  ecosystems function normally. These ecosystem functions
  include energy fixation, chemical cycling (oxygen
  production by         rainforests),    soil generation and
  maintenance, ground water recharge, water purification,
C and flood protection. These services are provided to us at
  no cost. When we destroy the ability of ecosystems to
  function naturally, we not only lose these free services but
  all too often have to pay to replace them.
D
         16. Protecting these species contributes to a thriving,
    healthy planet for people's health and well-being. Wildlife
    nurtures a sense of wonder. It is integral to maintain the
    balance of nature. Ultimately, by protecting these species,
E .we save this beautiful, vulnerable and utterly irreplaceable
    planet we call home. By protecting species, we also protect
    the essential goods and services that make our lives
    possible and contribute enormously to human health and
F well-being - breathable air, clean water, food, fibers, building
    materials, medicines, energy, fertile soils, climate
    regulation, transport, and recreational and spiritual values.
  - We are on mission to find solutions that save the marvelous
    array of life on our planet.
G
        17. If a species goes extinct, it's lost forever. Any
    aesthetic value it once had is gone. As Theodore
    Roosevelt said, "When I hear of the destruction of a
H species, I feel just as if all the works of some great writer
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                          391
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

have perished."                                                       A

      18. The leopard, Panthera pardus, is a member of the
felidae family. This secretive and elusive large cat was once
distributed across eastern and southern Asia and Africa.
Now at the center of a severe man-animal conflict because B
of expanding agricultural practices and development
projects, its habitat has depleted to mostly sub-Saharan
Africa and fragmented populations in Asia (Stuart, 2007).
As one of South Africa's "Big Five", the leopard forms a c
lucrative part of South Africa's economy being a
favourite to both the tourist and hunting industries. The
ecological importance of this animal lies in its position at the
top of the food chain in most ecosystems. The shooting of D
wild game purely for sport and trophies is no longer
compatible with our commitment to preserve local fauna as
a national treasure.

    19. The leopard, Panthera pardus, was listed in                   E
Appendix I in 1975, as part an overall move to protect
spotted cats from commercial trade in their skins.
Therefore, international trade in it or its products for primarily
commercial purposes was prohibited. However it has been
recognized that killing of specimens may be sanctioned by             F
countries of export in defense of life and property and to
enhance the survival of the species. Furthermore, this
resolution also recognized that the leopard was not
endangered in several African countries. Equally, this                G
resolution recognized the overwhelming desire of Parties
not to re-open a commercial market in leopard skins.
Thus, Resolution Conf. 4.13 struck a balance by
establishing a quota system that was subject to a review              H
392       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A every two years at successive Conferences to the
  Parties. Quotas were initially established from 7 African
  countries, totaling 460 specimens. Importers were allowed
  only one skin per person per calendar year, and these were
8 allowed only as personal imports that could not be sold in
  the country of import. The leopard quota system was
  reviewed through Resolution Conf. 5.13 and 6.9, when
  quotas were raised or added, but the recommendations
  remained practically the same. Resolution Conf. 7.7
c allowed the system to continue without the usual
  biannual review, but any increase in quota or any state not
  previously having a quota required the consent of the
  Conference of the Parties. Importers were allowed two
D skins per person per calendar year. Resolution Conf. 8.10
  (Rev.) was repealed by Resolution Conf. 10.14 which
  contains the currently applicable recommendations. Eleven
  African range States are now allowed export quotas per
E calendar year, totaling 2085 specimens. Each skin must be
  tagged by the exporting country to show the country of origin,
  the number of the specimen in relation to the annual quota
  and the calendar year to which the quota applies, and the
  same information must be recorded on the export
F document. Each exporting state must also submit an
  annual report to the Secretariat detailing the number of
  trophies and skins exported in the previous quota year.

       20. Keeping in view the aforesaid spirit, CITES, as an
G International Treaty, was made at Washington in the year
  1973 with a view to regulate the international trade in
  specimen of selected species subject to certain control
  set out therein. The clear intention behind this
H international Convention is that all the consenting countries
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                      393
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

come together and make joint efforts to save the animal           A
species from going extinct, inasmuch as their survival is for
the benefit of the mankind itself. The importance and role
to be played by the Authorities created under CITES is
to be highlighted in this context.
                                                                  B
    21. Preamble to this convention reads as under:

     "The Contracting States,

     Recognizing that wild fauna and flora in their many C
     beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part
     of the natural systems of the earth which must be
     protected for this and the generations to come;.

     Conscious of the ever-growing value of wild fauna and D
     flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational
     and economic points of view; Recognizing that people
     and States are and should be the best protectors of
     their own wild fauna and flora;                          E

     Recognizing, in addition, that international co-operation
     is essential for the protection of certain species of
     wild fauna and flora against over- exploitation
     through international trade;                                 F

     Convinced of the urgency of taking appropriate
     measures to this end;"

    22.    Article I clause (a)     defines "species" in the      G
following form:

    (a) "Species" means any species, subspecies,           or
geographically separate population thereof.
                                                                  H
394       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A      23. As per the clause (b) which defines "specimen"
  to mean, amongst others, in case of an animal those which
  are included in appendices I and II. CITES vision
  statement is conserve biodiversity and contribute to its
8 sustainable use by ensuring that no species of wild fauna or
  flora becomes or remains subject to unsustainable
  exploitation through international trade, thereby contributing
  to the significant reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss.
  The Preamble to the Convention states that the objective of
C CITES is to prevent the over-exploitation of species
  through international trade and to ensure their long term
  survival. The ultimate aim of the Convention is
  undoubtedly to promote species conservation. However,
D legally the convention only has jurisdiction over the
  regulation of international trade and cannot be held
  accountable for the effects of other factors which affect
  species conservation, such as habitat conversion.

E      24. Widespread information nowadays about the
  endangered status of many prominent species like tiger
  make the need of convention obvious. With hindsight,
  the need of CITES is clear. Annually international wildlife
F trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and to
  include hundreds of millions of plant and animal specimens.
  The trade is diverse, ranging from live animals and plants
  to a vast array of wildlife products derived from them,
  including food products, exotic leather goods, wooden
G musical instruments, timber, tourist curios and
  medicines.Levels of exploitation of some animal and plant
  species are high and the trade in them, together with other
  factors, such as habitat loss, is capable of heavily
H depleting their populations and even bringing some species
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                  395
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

close to extinction. Many wildlife species in trade are not A
endangered, but the existence of an agreement to
ensure the sustainability of the trade is important in order
to safeguard these resources for the future.

    25. Because the trade in wild animals and plants B
crosses borders between countries, the effort to regulate it
requires international cooperation to safeguard certain
species from over-exploitation. CITES was conceived in
the spirit of such cooperation.                              C

     26. In order to perform its task, namely, to regulate the
animal species mentioned in Appendix-I, scientific as well
as Management Authority are also contemplated in this
convention which have to perform some designated function D
as mentioned therein. Clauses (f) and (g) of Article I
defines these authorities as below:

     "(f) "Scientific Authority" means a national
     scientific authority designated in accordance with        E
     Article IX;

     (g) "Management Authority" means a national
     management authority designated in accordance with        F
     Article IX."

     27. Article II which deals with the fundamental
principles, inter alia,- mentions that it shall include all
species threatened with extinction which are or may be G
effected by trade. It also stipulates that trade in
specimens of these species must be subject to
particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further
their survival and must be in authorization in exceptional
                                                                H
396         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A circumstances.

           28. Next Article which is of relevance to this case is
      Article 111 (iii) as it stipulates the role of Scientific as well
      as Management Authority. In order to understand the
 8    importance of these authorities we reproduce clause (iii)
      of Article Ill as under:

             "The import of any specimen of species included in
              Appendix-I shall require the prior grant and
c             presentation of an import permit and either an
              export permit or a re-export certificate etc. An
              import shall only be granted when the following
              conditions have been met:
D
             (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of import
              advised that the import will be for the purposes
              which are not detrimental to survival of the species
              involved;
E
             (b) a Scientific authority of the State of import is
              satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living
              specimen is suitably equipped . to house and care
              for it; and
 F
             (c) a Management Authority of the State of import is
              satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for
              primarily commercial purposes~'
G          29. We may also point out at this stage that under
      Article IX, the functions of Management and Scientific
      Authorities are mentioned.

          30. What flows from the conjoint reading from the
H
     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S.                   397
         POONAWALA & ORS. [A.K.SIKRl,J.]

aforesaid provisions is that before import of any specimen A
of species included in appendix I, prior import permit of
Scientific Authority and Management Authority is required
and before such a permit is given, the opinion of Scientific
Authority as well as the Management Authority on 8
particular aspects is required. Insofar as the Scientific
Authority is concerned, it would look into the matter from
two angles, namely, that the import ,;: not detrimental to the
survival of the species involved and further the proposed
recipient is suitably equipped of house and care for it. C
Insofar as the ManagementAuthority is concerned, it is to
satisfy itself that the specimen is not to be used for primary
commercial purposes.
                                                                 D
     31. The High Court while observing that the only
function of the Management Authority was to ensure that
'specimen' is not to be used for commercial purpose
looked into the function of Management Authority alone.
Error is committed by glossing over the function of the E
Scientific Authority. This resulted in passing the impugned
directions which are clearly erroneous. It is here where the
High Court clearly erred. It is stated at the cost of repetition
that that matter is to be placed before the Scientific F
Authority and it is this Authority which has to form an
opinion as to whether the import will or will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species involved. This
becomes extremely important to carry out the objects of
the aforesaid conventions read with the fundamental G
principles stipulated in Article II thereof.

    32. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, is not
sustainable. The judgment of the High Court is set aside for H
398          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A the same reason. We also set aside the order of
  17.1.2003 passed by the CITES, Order dated 16.5.2002 as
  well as show cause notice dated 27 .11.2002 given by the
  Custom Authority under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
B      33. We may recorded at this stage that after the
  High Court had pronounced the judgment, respondent no.1
  got the aforesaid item cleared from the Customs and is
  in possession thereof as of now. In such circumstances,
c we are of the opinion that appropriate course of action
  would be to permit respondent no.1 to apply to the Scientific
  Authority for necessary permission in the light of the
  observations made hereinabove. Application for the said
  purpose shall be preferred within four weeks from the date
0
  of receipt of the copy of thisi order. The Scientific Authority,
  which we are informed has already been constituted, shall
  consider the application and pass speaking order after
  giving opportunity of being heard to respondent no.1. The
E order shall be passed by the Scientific Authority within three
  months from the date the application is made by
  respondent no.1. In case order passed is in favour of
  respondent no.1, he will be allowed to keep the trophy
F with him. In case order passed goes against respondent
  no.1, he shall surrender the trophy to the Custom
  Authorities. Needless to mention, this would be subject to
  any rights which respondent no.1 will have in law, to
  challenge the orders passed by the Scientific Authority
G or CITES.

           34. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

      Nidhi Jain                                Appeal disposed of.
H