Arjun Sahlot vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5997 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  Judgment reserved on: 17.11.2011

%                 Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2011


+      W.P.(C.) No. 1137/2011 & C.M. No. 7613/2011

       ARJUN SAHLOT                                        ..... Petitioner
                              Through:   Mr. Rohit Priya Ranjan, Advocate.

                         versus

       UOI AND ORS                                        ..... Respondents
                              Through:   Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG along with
                                         Mr.Jatan Singh, CGSC and Mr.Ritesh
                                         Kumar, Mr. Piyush Sanghi, Mr.Sumit
                                         Goyal & Mr. Prashant Ghai,
                                         Advocates.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI


                                  JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the quashing of the

communication dated 20.01.2011 issued by the Director General of

Foreign Trade (DGFT) in the Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Government of India impleaded as respondent No. 1 herein, whereby

the petitioner's request to include Austria/Germany as country of origin

in the import license No. 0550001294 dated 25.11.2008 has been

rejected on the ground that the request for amendment had been filed

with the DGFT on 09.12.2010, whereas the validity of the import

license aforesaid had expired on 25.11.2010.

2. The petitioner-Master Arjun Sahlot claims to be a Child National

Champion of India of Equestrian Sports. The petitioner has placed on

record certificates of various awards won by him in Equestrian

Championships held in India. The case of the petitioner is that to build

his career in the said sport, the petitioner intended to import three

sport horses. The petitioner approached the DGFT for grant of import

license. The petitioner was, accordingly, granted an import license

dated 25.11.2008 for import of three horses of CIF/FOB value in

Rs.3,12,280/-. The import license described the name of the

item as "3 Nos. of Horse (Hanoverian) from Australia subject to

fulfillment of the conditions laid down in D/C AHD&F Notification No.

522(E) dt. 24.7.2002 and fulfillment of quarantine regulations in force

and subject to actual user condition besides other applicable

conditions of import licence". The import license was valid for a period

of twenty four months. (emphasis supplied)

3. It appears that the petitioner imported three horses from

Germany/Austria on 08.09.2010 at New Delhi Airport. These horses

arrived in India on 08.09.2010 and remained in Isolation Animal Shed

at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport till 28.12.2010 without

showing any sign of disease and they were shifted to the Quarantine

Station of respondent No. 2, i.e. the Department of Animal Husbandry,

Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India on

28.12.2010. Since then they are at the Quarantine Station or

respondent No. 2.

4. On 09.09.2010, the Quarantine Officer (NR) issued a

communication to the Assistant Commissioner Import (Cargo), IGI

Airport stating that the three horses imported by the petitioner from

Germany on 08.09.2010 are not having import license. It was also

stated that the health documents are not proper and not issued by

competent authority. The health status of these horses was doubted

as pre-import requirements were not properly certified and lacked

authenticity. It was stated that keeping in view the national health

security, the consignment cannot be allowed to enter the country. He

stated that the same be deported to the country of origin immediately

without any further delay.

5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said communication, preferred

W.P.(C.) No. 6603/2010 before this Court. The said writ petition was

dismissed by the learned Single-Judge of this Court vide order dated

08.10.2010. The Court held that as long as the place of origin of the

three horses imported by the petitioner is Austria, the essential

condition of the import license, that the three imported horses should

be from Australia, cannot be said to be satisfied. The Court held that

this fact cannot be changed merely because the horses had been

registered with the Australian Warmblood Horse Association Limited.

Since the aforesaid essential condition of the license, namely, the

place of origin of the horses was not satisfied, it was held that the

Court could not issue a direction to the respondents to allow the three

horses in question to enter the country. The Court further held that the

quarantine requirements were strict and not negotiable. The Court

accepted the respondents' submission that the geographical place of

origin of an animal is very critical in determining the kind of diseases

that are likely to be transmitted when such horses are brought to a

different location. The diseases peculiar to a region may not

immediately manifest when a horse is brought to a different

geographical location. It was also observed that merely because the

horses had not attracted any diseases while they were kept in

quarantine under the orders of the Court, and merely because they

were in perfect health, would not come to the aid of the petitioner

since the essential conditions of the license are not satisfied.

6. The petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against

the judgment of the learned Single-Judge, which was registered as LPA

No. 851/2010. It appears that, after some arguments, the petitioner

withdrew the said appeal to approach the licensing authority for

amendment of the license. Consequently, the said appeal was

dismissed as withdrawn on the said statement of the petitioner

through his counsel on 03.12.2010.

7. Immediately after the withdrawing of the LPA No. 851/2010, on

04.12.2010 itself the petitioner applied for amendment of the import

license. The petitioner sought amendment of the license to include the

place of origin as Austria and sought urgent action on the ground that

the horses are suffering cruelty, standing in confinement at the Animal

Shed of the Cargo Terminal of the IGI Airport, Delhi. However, no

action was taken on the petitioner's application for amendment of

import license. Vide letter dated 29.12.2010, the petitioner sent a

reminder. Since the petitioner still did not hear from the respondents,

he preferred W.P.(C.) No. 410/2011 to seek a direction to the DGFT to

decide the petitioner's application to seek amendment of the import

license. During the pendency of the said petition, the DGFT issued the

impugned communication dated 20.01.2011, whereby the application

for amendment of import license was rejected. The petitioner,

consequently, withdrew W.P.(C.) No. 410/2011 with liberty to file a

fresh petition to challenge the said rejection. That is how the present

writ petition has come to be filed.

8. A few more developments took place in the meantime, which

need to be taken note of. The Additional Commissioner of Customs

passed the order in Original No. 17/2010 on 27.10.2010. By this order,

the declared value of the goods was rejected under Rule 12 of the

Valuation Rules, 2007. The value of the horses were re-assessed as

US$ 10,000/- each (FOB). The total assessable value of goods was

assessed as Rs.16,73,560/-. The Additional Commissioner of Customs

ordered the confiscation of the three horses under Section 111 (d) &

(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods could not be allowed

clearance for home consumption, the petitioner was allowed to re-

export the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. A

penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the petitioner's mother

considering that he was a minor, under Section 112 (a) of the Customs

Act. A further penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed on one Sh. Kapil

Modi under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.

9. The Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Private

Limited (hereinafter referred to as the CELEBI) to whom the three

horses were handed over, filed W.P.(C.) No. 7998/2010 with the

grievance that the respondents namely the Department of Animal

Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, the Customs Department and the

petitioner herein should take steps for deportation of the three horses

to their country of origin. CELEBI also prayed that the three horses be

taken into custody by respondents No. 1 & 2, namely the Department

of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and the Quarantine

Officer for their expert medical care and maintenance till they are

deported back to their country of origin. CELEBI also sought a direction

against the petitioner herein to clear the demurrage charges incurred

by CELEBI on account of maintenance of the horses in terms of the

order dated 08.10.2010 passed by this Court in the petitioner's earlier

writ petition. During these proceedings, the Court was informed that

the three horses in question could not be re-exported to their country

of origin, namely Austria/Germany, as export of horses from India to

Europe had been banned. Vide an order dated 24.12.2010, the Court

directed that the horses in question be shifted from the custody of

CELEBI to the Quarantine Station under the control of the Quarantine

Officer.

10. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of

Customs (Appeals) to assail the adjudication order dated 27.10.2010,

as aforesaid. The said appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner of

Customs (Appeals) vide his order dated 29.04.2011, i.e. during the

pendency of this petition and the appellate order has been brought on

record by the petitioner. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has

directed the adjudicating authority to explore the possibility whether

the said horses can be released for home consumption in the event the

same cannot be re-exported, as claimed by the appellants, and,

accordingly, release the imported horses for home consumption on

payment of fine and penalty imposed and payment of duty, if any,

subject to fulfillment of conditions as per law and on obtaining the No

Objection Certificate (NOC) from Animal Quarantine (AQ), Department

of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, New Delhi or any other

relevant provisions of law applicable in the instant case. The

Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) noted that the petitioner had not

contested the claim of fine and penalty imposed and he did not find

any reason to interfere with the same in the light of the facts of the

case.

11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the order of rejection of the petitioner's application for amendment of

the import license has been passed without application of mind. The

petitioner contends that the respondents are hell bent, not to allow the

petitioner to take the horses. Reliance is placed on the Handbook of

Procedure of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, clause 2.13 whereof

provides that the RA concerned may re-validate an import

authorization on merits, for six months from the date of expiry of

validity.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 2.12.2 of

the said handbook provides that the validity of an import authorization

is decided with reference to the date of shipment/despatch of goods

from supplying country as given in para 9.11A, and not the date of

arrival of the goods at the Indian port. The date of shipment/despatch

when the mode of transportation is by air, like in the present case, is

the date of relevant airway bill. He submits that since the airway bill in

the present case represents the date on which the goods, namely, the

horses, left the last airport in the country from which the import was

effected, the date of shipment in the present case would be

08.09.2010. Learned counsel submits that the validity of the import

license was 24 months. Consequently, the validity of the said license

would continue till 08.09.2012. He submits that the stand of the DGFT

that the license could not be amended on the ground that the same

had expired is, therefore, patently incorrect.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the three

horses have been shifted to the quarantine station of respondent no.2

on 28.12.2010. Ever since their arrival on 08.09.2010, till date, they

have not been found to be suffering from any disease whatsoever. He

submits import of horses from Austria/Germany is not banned as there

are any number of instances where horses have been imported from

these countries. The petitioner has placed on record the documents to

show that import of horses has been allowed to various persons from

Germany, Denmark and Australia.

14. Learned counsel submits that the import license issued to the

petitioner, though mentions the place of origin of the horses as

Australia, it also mentioned "all countries excluding Iraq". The

submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the import of

horses is, therefore, permitted from all countries excluding Iraq, and

the mere mention of Australia as the place of origin of the horses has

to be read in conjunction with the notation "all countries excluding

Iraq".

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention

to the order dated 21.03.2011 passed in W.P.(C.) No.7998/2010

preferred by CELEBI. By this order, the Court had, inter alia, directed

that the horses in question be tested for re-export by drawing blood

samples. For this purpose, a scientist from the National Research

Centre on Equines, Hissar was required to be called to be present when

the blood samples are drawn. Learned counsel submits that these

blood samples have been tested and the samples have been found to

be negative for EIA (Coggins test), Glanders (CFT), Japenese

Encephalitis, EHV-1 (VNT), Equine Viral Arteritis (VNT), Equine

Piroplasmosis (Theiieria equi and Babesia cabelli) and Dourine (CFT).

The test report dated 19.04.2011 prepared by National Research

Centre on Equines in its report, inter alia, states "In case the animals

have not been tested for EIA during the last three months, retesting

should be done after one month. The swab samples collected and

submitted by you from the above listed horses are presently negative

for Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM)".

16. The petitioner further submits that respondent no.2, i.e.

Department of Animal Husbandry, Diaries and Fisheries has issued a

notification dated 07.05.2010, whereunder the import of horses from

CEM infected country is allowed/permitted. On the basis of this

recommendation of respondent no.2 contained in the said notification,

respondent no.1 DGFT has issued import license to number of

importers to import horses from CEM infected countries, such as

Germany, USA etc. A copy of the said notification has been placed on

record. This notification, inter alia, provides:

"(c) If the horses come from the Contagious Equine Metritis infected country, import is allowed on the following conditions;

(i) males up to seven years and female up to five years of age which have not been mated, or

(ii) the breeding horses that have mated and pregnant mares comes from an establishment which has been free from Contagious Equine Metritis for at least three years':

17. It further provides:

"4. Post Import Quarantine:

After import in India, the animal shall be kept in quarantine for a minimum period of thirty days at the Government Quarantine Station. During the quarantine period, the animal shall be subject to standard culture and serological examination for any disease as deemed necessary. In case of Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM), three consecutive samples drawn at seven days interval should be tested negative. In the event of any animal being found positive for any exotic disease, the animal shall be deported back to the country of origin/destroyed at the quarantine station at the cost of the importer".

18. Learned counsel submits that as per the test report dated

19.04.2011, the three horses have been found to be negative for CEM.

19. The petitioner also submits that the Embassy of India had floated

a notice inviting tender addressed to various European Union countries

for procuring 400 mountain artillery mule breeding brood mares, 4

horses stallions and 10 donkey stallions in the year 2007. According to

the petitioner, horses from Austria were then imported on the

recommendation of respondent no.2 by Major J.S. Ahluwalia and M/s.

Sapphire Realtors in January 2010. The averments in this regard is

made in para 23 of the writ petition. I may note that in their counter-

affidavit, the respondents do not deny this averment of the petitioner.

On the contrary, there is an admission of the fact that horses and

mules from Austria/Germany have indeed been imported by the Indian

Army.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has taken a pragmatic and legal

view of the matter in the light of the fact that the re-export of the

horses in question to Europe is banned. The horses in question are

not contraband articles. It is not that their import from

Germany/Austria is completely banned. If at all, there is a technical

error, and that too only if import license is read to permit import only

from Australia, inasmuch, as, the place of origin of the horses in

question is Austria/Germany and not Australia. Learned counsel

submits that, as noted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in

his order, the petitioner did not challenge the quantum of fine and

penalty imposed by the Commissioner. He submits that the petitioner

has been incurring tremendous amount of expenditure on regular basis

to meet the cost of maintaining the horses in quarantine. He submits

that the amendment sought by the petitioner in the import license is a

mere formality, and there is no reason to deny the same since horses

have regularly been imported from Austria/Germany in the recent past

as well.

21. So far as the allegation of the respondent that the certificate

issued by Dr. Erdmann is not valid, as he is not the official veteranian,

learned counsel submits that the same doctor has been issuing

certificates in the past for import of horses into India, and such

certificates have been accepted by the respondents. He submits that

there was no way that the petitioner could have known whether Dr.

Erdmann had been authorized to issue the certificates, or not. He

submits that, in any event, the horses have been repeatedly been

tested for presence of various diseases including CEM, and they do not

have any such disease.

22. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the

respondent DGFT is that, the validity of the license having expired on

25.11.2010, the application for amendment could not even be

considered as it was filed after the said expiry on 09.12.2010. It is also

argued that the petitioner is merely a facade and the real importer is

someone else who is carrying on a commercial activity by importing

such live stock. It is argued that the petitioner deliberately imported

the horses from Austria/Germany even though the import license was

valid only for import from Australia. It is submitted that upon enquiry

from the German authorities, the Federal Ministry of Health, Germany

has clarified vide letter dated 22.09.2010 that the certificate of fitness

issued by Dr. Erdmann is not valid. In fact, Dr. Erdmann has stated

that he has not issued certificates for any export to India. It is argued

that though the horses in question cannot be re-exported to the place

of origin as such export is banned, they could be exported to a couple

of islands in France.

23. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is not obliged to re-export the horses in question, much

less to some remote islands in France. The petitioner does not know

any importer of horses on those islands and it is not possible for the

petitioner to do so.

24. Reliance placed by the petitioner on clause 2.12.2 readwith

9.11A of the handbook of procedure to contend that the import license

shall be reckoned as valid for a period of two years, not from the date

of its issue, but from the date of the relevant airway bill, which

represents the date on which the goods left the last airport in the

country from which the import is effected, cannot be accepted. The

import license itself bears the date of its issue, and states the period of

shipment as 24 months. The shipment under the said import license

could, therefore, have been made only within 24 months. The purport

of clause 2.12.2 readwith clause 9.11A is only to say that the import

made under an import license shall be construed as valid with

reference to the date of shipment/despatch of goods from the

supplying country as given in clause 9.11A of the handbook of

procedures, and not by reference to the date of arrival of the goods at

the Indian port. For example, if the validity of the import license

expires on the 30th of a month, and the goods are shipped from the last

port in the country from the import is effected on 29th of the month,

but arrive at the Indian port on the 1st of the next month, the import

would be considered as valid under the said license.

25. Clause 2.12.2 read with clause 9.11A of the handbook of

procedure cannot be understood to mean that the validity of the

import license shall be reckoned from the date of the actual import,

even though the license may have been issued nearly two years prior

to the actual date of import, and even though the import license

explicitly gives the period of its validity as 24 months. It is, therefore,

clear that the petitioners case did require extension of the validity of

the import license.

26. However, there is no reason given by the respondents as to why

the petitioner's case did not warrant favorable consideration for

extension of the validity of the import license and its amendment.

Pertinently, the petitioner had been litigating for the release of the

horses since September 2010. The application of amendment of

import license was made by the petitioner after making a statement

before the Division Bench in LPA No.851/2010 that the petitioner would

seek an amendment. This statement was made on 03.12.2010, and

the application appears to have been made on 04.12.2010 itself. Even

if the license originally issued expired on 25.11.2010, there was hardly

a delay of about ten days in making of the application.

27. Clause 2.13 of handbook of procedure clearly permits the

revalidation of the import license for upto six months from the date of

expiry of its validity. In this case, the horses had already been

imported. They were kept waiting with the quarantine officer since

28.12.2010. The power to extend the validity of the import license has

to be exercised reasonably and for germane consideration. It cannot

be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily as appears to be the case in

hand. There seems to have been absolutely no application of mind to

even consider the request for extension of the validity of the license

much less for amendment of the license.

28. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992,

whereunder the import license in question has been issued, in section

9(2) provides that the Director General or an officer authorized by him

may, on an application and after making such enquiry as he may think

fit, grant or renew or refuse to grant or renew a license of import or

export, after recording in writing his reasons for such refusal.

Consequently, the power to renew an import license is clearly vested in

the Director General or an officer authorized by him.

29. As noted above, clause 2.13 of the Handbook of Procedure Vol.I

framed by the DGFT provided for revalidation of the import

authorization on merits for six months from the date of expiry of its

validity. Clause 9.3 of the said handbook provides that wherever any

application is received after expiry of last date for submission of such

application, the application may be considered after imposing "late

cut" in the manner provided in the said provision. It would be seen

that applications which are received upto two years late from the

prescribed date of submission can be entertained by imposing a "late

cut" of 10 percent.

30. I may also make a reference to Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014

framed by the Central Govt. under section 5 of the Foreign Trade

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, vide notification dated

27.08.2009 bearing No.1/2009-2014. In Chapter II, which deals with

general provisions regarding imports and exports, clause 2.26 provides

"goods already imported/shipped/arrived, in advance, but not cleared

from customs may also be cleared against authorization issued

subsequently". The aforesaid provision shows that there is no bar to

the issuance of even a fresh import license to the petitioner for the

import of the horses in question. As noted above, the said import is

not in relation to a banned item. The DGFT ought to have been aware

of the aforesaid position while considering the petitioners application

to seek amendment of the original import license by inclusion of

Austria/Germany as the country of origin.

31. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the

communication dated 22.09.2010 issued by the Federal Ministry of

Health, Austria, no doubt, shows that Dr. Erdmann was not officially

approved to issue certificates on behalf of the Republic of Austria.

However, this certificate also shows that Dr. Erdmann, who denied

having issued the certificates for export of the horses to India, as a

matter of fact, accompanied the said horses while they were being

transferred from Frankfurt, Germany to India. His statement that he

has not issued the certificate has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and

appears to be an attempt on his part to save his skin from the German

Authorities.

32. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has already held in his

order dated 29.04.2011 that the adjudicating authority should explore

the possibility whether the horses can be released for home

consumption, on payment of fine, penalty and duty, and subject to

fulfillment of conditions as per law, and on a no objection certificate

from the Animal Quarantine Department of Animal Husbandry, Diaries

and Fisheries, New Delhi.

33. The respondents have not disclosed any cogent reasons for not

extending the validity of the import license, which could have been

extended for a period of six months from 25.11.2010, and amending

the same, when import of horses from Austria/Germany is not

prohibited/banned. The petitioners application to seek amendment of

the license had been made on 04.12.2010. The petitioner was not

informed about the fate of his said application, and the petitioner had

to send reminders, and even file a writ petition before this court,

before the respondents chose to issue the impugned communication

dated 20.01.2011. Even on the date on which the impugned

communication was issued, the period of six months from the date of

the expiry of initial import license was not over. The reason for which

the amendment of the import license was rejected is completely

untenable. The petitioner is entitled to issuance of a fresh import

license in respect of the horses in question even today, as provided for

in clause 2.26 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014.

34. The view taken by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), in

my view, is a fair and pragmatic view. If the petitioner were not to

pursue the case any further, what would the respondents do? Would

they destroy these horses which have been imported by spending

valuable foreign exchange running into lakhs of rupees, even though

they appear to be perfectly healthy?

35. It should always be present to the mind of the respondents that

procedures are evolved only in aid of, and to implement the

substantive rights and obligations of parties. The procedural

requirements cannot become an excuse to deny the substantive rights

of a party, particularly when the prescribed procedure itself provides

for the same. The petitioner under the substantive law of import is

entitled to import horses even from Germany/Austria. The mere lack

of a prior import license, to import horses from Austria/Germany

cannot come in the way of the petitioner in now procuring an amended

or a fresh import license under the relevant rules. In the light of the

aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

communication/order dated 20.01.2011 is quashed. It is held that the

petitioner is entitled to clear the horses in question for home

consumption, subject to the various conditions detailed hereinafter.

36. The petitioner must take full responsibility for irregularly

importing the horses from Austria/Germany. The import license was

valid for import from Australia. For this irregularity, the petitioner has

already been subjected to fine and penalty by the customs authorities.

The petitioner has not been able to undertake delivery of the horses

while, at the same time, he has had to maintain the same in

quarantine.

37. These horses have been tested and have been found to be

perfectly healthy. I fully agree with the view of S. Muralidhar, J. in

W.P.(C.) No.6603/2010 that the requirement of quarantine department

is not negotiable. However, the petitioner has shown that the import

of horses from Austria/Germany has been undertaken and permitted in

the past. Not only civilians, even the Army has imported horses and

mules from these countries. Import is permitted even from countries

which are CEM positive, subject to tests and conditions. There is no

reason, not to permit the import of these horses if they satisfy the

tests and conditions laid down para-4 in the notification dated

07.05.2010 referred to above.

38. In normal circumstances, I may have required the respondents to

pass a fresh order for granting extension and for amendment of the

import license. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am not

inclined to do so. The peculiarity lies in the fact that the import in this

case is that of livestock, i.e. horses meant for equestrian sports. These

horses arrived on 08.09.2010, i.e. over 14 months ago. There is,

therefore, a sense of urgency to deal with the situation.

39. Considering the fact that these horses were imported for the

purpose of equestrian sports, there can be no denying the fact that

they need regular and proper care and exercise. With the passage of

each day, their potential to render service in equestrian sports would

diminish. I, therefore, direct the respondents to release the said

horses to the petitioner at the earliest, subject to the following

conditions:

i) The horses being subjected to tests and satisfying the

conditions and tests prescribed in para-4 of the notification

dated 07.05.2010. For this purpose, if not already done, the

tests be conducted by the National Research Centre on

Equines, the costs whereof shall be borne by the petitioner.

ii) The petitioner paying the customs duty, fine and penalty

imposed upon the petitioner;

iii) The petitioner paying the entire quarantine charges upto the

date of taking of delivery;

iv) The petitioner paying the charges towards revalidation of the

import license and towards amendment thereof to include

Austria/Germany as the countries of origin of the horses, and

towards medical examination of the horses earlier as well.

The amount already paid by the petitioner shall be given

credit.

40. The respondents shall communicate the charges, not already

communicated, positively within three days hereof.

41. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the

parties to bear their respective costs. Copy be given Dasti to the

parties for immediate compliance.

(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2011 'BSR'/SR