The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has rejected the department’s plea for a stay on the release of exotic birds and animals seized from R. Kumaresan @ Mukesh, stating that the department failed to establish sufficient grounds for intervention.
Background: Alleged Smuggling of Exotic Species
The case originates from a 2019 search conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai Zonal Unit, at the residence of Kumaresan, a Chennai-based pet trader. Acting on intelligence inputs, DRI officers seized 69 exotic birds and animals—including 19 different species—allegedly smuggled into India from Thailand and Myanmar. Authorities also confiscated vehicles, cash, electronic devices, and bank balances totaling over ₹1 crore.
The Adjudicating Authority had earlier ordered absolute confiscation and imposed penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently overturned this order in June 2024, ruling that the seizure was not at the point of entry but rather a “town seizure,” and the department failed to conclusively establish smuggling.
Revenue’s Argument for Stay Rejected
The Revenue, challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision, filed a stay application to halt its execution. Represented by Shri Sanjay Kakkar, the department argued that the seized items were smuggled wildlife and constituted “prohibited goods” under the law, irrespective of whether they were listed under CITES. The Revenue also alleged that Kumaresan had admitted to smuggling and that financial trails supported this claim.
However, the Bench, comprising Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) , found the plea lacking in merit. The Tribunal held that:
- The impugned order was reasoned and not arbitrary.
- The balance of convenience lay with the respondent, especially considering the seven-year delay in the case, during which many birds perished.
- A mini-trial to re-evaluate evidence was not appropriate at the stay stage.
High Court Observations: Death of Birds Due to Delay
Importantly, the Tribunal’s order was influenced by the Madras High Court’s judgment in W.A. No. 1664 of 2025, where the court noted with anguish that a majority of the seized birds had died during the prolonged custody at the Vandalur Zoo. The High Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal to prevent further harm to the remaining animals and allowed the respondent to approach CESTAT for directions.
“Had the litigation been concluded in a timely fashion, it might have ensured that some of the birds and animals seized were alive today,” the High Court lamented.
Custodial Negligence and Legal Responsibility
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. and Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam v. State of Bombay, the Tribunal underscored that the government bears the responsibility of a bailee when goods are seized. It held that the Revenue failed in its duty to preserve the seized property in the condition it was confiscated.
On National Litigation Policy and Maintainability
The Tribunal declined to consider the respondent’s late-stage argument regarding monetary thresholds under the National Litigation Policy, stating that such issues should be raised through appropriate procedural applications—not during oral submissions at the stay stage.
Conclusion: Tribunal Orders Release of Seized Property
Rejecting the Revenue’s stay plea, the Tribunal ordered that:
- The seized birds, animals, vehicles, cash, and bank balances will be released to Kumaresan, as per the Commissioner (Appeals)’s direction.
- The Revenue had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to override the appellate order.
- The respondent is free to file additional grounds if needed, but the current plea by Revenue lacked substantive basis.
Case Details
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus Shri R. Kumaresan @ Mukesh
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 40796/2024
Date: 06.08.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Sanjay Kakkar, Authorized Representative
Counsel For Respondent: A.P. Ravi, Advocate
