Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned notification imposed any prohibition on import of pet dogs and whether the petitioner was entitled to approach the competent authority for import authorisation.
Analysis: The notification, issued in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, permitted import of dogs for specified purposes, including pet dogs with a valid pet book and relevant records or documents in the name of the importer. The restriction applied only to commercial dogs for breeding or other commercial activities. Since the petitioner herself asserted that the proposed import was for personal pet use and not for commercial activity, no blanket bar on such import was found. The Court further observed that the petitioner could apply to the competent authority under the applicable policy and that any such application, if made with a valid import licence, should be decided by a speaking order within one month after due consideration and hearing, if required.
Conclusion: The challenge to the notification failed, but the petitioner was permitted to seek import authorisation for pet dogs in accordance with law, with a direction for expeditious consideration of such application.
Ratio Decidendi: A policy condition permitting import of pet dogs with prescribed documents does not amount to a prohibition on such imports merely because it restricts commercial dog imports.