B. N. KIRPAL, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is to the decision of the respondents who have not extended the validity of an import licence which was held by the petitioner. ( 2 ) ON the basis of the exports which had been made, M/s Ciba Geigy of India Limited had been given a replenishment licence dated 10th September, 1980 for a sum of Rs. 14,66,325. On the basis of this licence a number of items mentioned therein could be imported. One of the items which could be imported, by virtue of the said licence, was Oxy Tetracycline. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid replenishment licence is easily transferable. The petitioner herein, according to the averments made in the writ petition, had purchased the said licence. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the said licence, on 5th May, 1981, the petitioner opened a letter of credit for the import of Oxy Tetracycline of the value of Rs. 14,43,124. 00. The foreign suppliers shipped two consignments under the said letter of credit, one of which was cleared by the Customs authorities. The second consignment of 4250 Kgs. valued at U. S. $85,000 was shipped on board the vessel S. S. "president Eisenhower" 15th June, 1981. The said vessel arrived in the port of Bombay during the month of July 1981. The petitioners filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods but it was then discovered that the entire consignment consisting of 425 packages containing 4250 Kgs of Oxy Tetracycline was missing. ( 5 ) THE Port Trust and the Customs Authorities issued the necessary Short Landing Certificate in September 1981. The petitioners filed a claim with the Insurance Company and the claim was settled only on 2nd November, 1982 for a sum of Rs. 8,94,736. 84. ( 6 ) ON 28th January, 1983, the petitioners wrote to respondent No. 3, the Additional Chief Controller of Import and Exports, Delhi, requesting for the validation of its licence so that it could import the aforesaid item of Oxy Tetracycline. This application was made in terms of paragraph 345 (2) of the Hand Book of Rules and Procedures for the year 1982-83. This application was made in terms of paragraph 345 (2) of the Hand Book of Rules and Procedures for the year 1982-83. ( 7 ) BY order dated 28th April, 1983, the petitioners request for revalidation was rejected on the ground that the item sought to be imported fell under the list which contained the names of items whose import was absolutely banned. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said decision. By order dated 21st December, 1983, the appeal was dismissed, the three reasons given were : Firstly there was a delay of one year and seven months in applying for revalidation, Secondly, the items sought to be imported were absolutely banned; and Thirdly, the petitioners insurance claim has been settled, therefore, the petitioners had suffered no loss. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Central Government but by order dated 30th July, 1984, the same was dismissed on the ground that as per the current policy, revalidation was not possible. ( 8 ) IN this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge to the decision of the respondents in refusing to extend the validity of the licence. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions, it is first of all necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Hand Book of Rules and Procedure and the Import Policy in connection with this item namely, Oxy Tetracycline. ( 10 ) THE licence which was sought to be utilised by the petitioners had been issued on 10th September, 1980 and was, therefore, covered by the policy for the year 1979-80. Appendix 3 of the policy for the year 1979-80 contained a list of banned items. Oxy Tetracycline was at Sr. No. 357 of the said list. Appendix 17 contains the statement of import policy for registered exporters. Item No. B-11. 1 of Appendix 17 inter alia provided 15 per cent import replenishment of unprocessed bulk drugs and chemicals appearing in the list of banned and canalized items of Appendix 3. As a result of this the said import licence of Oxy Tetracycline, which was otherwise in the list of banned items, could be imported to the extent of 15 per cent of the exports which had been made by the exporters, namely, M/s Ciba Geigy of India Limited. ( 11 ) THE application for revalidation was filed on 28th January, 1983. ( 11 ) THE application for revalidation was filed on 28th January, 1983. The relevant policy at that time was for the year 1982-83. Oxy Tetracycline, in the year 1982-83, was now placed in Appendix 4 of the Import Policy. Appendix 4 contained the list of non-permissible items (banned ). Nevertheless item B-11. 1 of Appendix 17 inter alia permitted import of unprocessed bulk drugs and chemicals appearing in Appendices 3 and 4, to the extent of 15 per cent imports. It will be by virtue of this that in 1982-83 also import of Oxy Tetracycline was permissible on the said licence. ( 12 ) A perusal of the relevant entries for the year 1979-80 and of 1982-83 will show that whereas Oxy Tetracycline was in the list of banned items neverthless by virtue of the provisions of Appendix 17, the said item could be imported up to a particular percentage of exports made. Reference may now be made to the provisions of paragraph 345 of the Hand Book of Import and Export Procedure for the year 1982-83. "replacement Licences 345. (1) Goods imported in replacement of those previously imported which have been found to be defective or otherwise unfit for use, or have been lost or damaged after import, would be allowed to be cleared under Open General Licence No. 4 provided the conditions stipulated under the said OGL are fulfilled. In respect of such replacement imports, the shipment should be made within 24 months from the date of clearance of the previously imported goods through the Customs or within the guarantee period in the case of machines or parts thereof. Cases, where shipments for replacement have not been made within 24 months will not normally be considered. However, in cases of genuine hardship, for reasons beyond the control of applicants, the licensing authority may consider such requests on the merit of each case. In such case, the applicants should produce the same documents as have been laid down for import under OGL No. IV, and should give reasons for which import could not be made under OGL No. IV. (2) In cases, where the goods have been found short shipped, short-landed or lost in transit prior to actual import, and are detected as such at the time of clearance through the customs, no fresh licence will be issued to cover the goods. (2) In cases, where the goods have been found short shipped, short-landed or lost in transit prior to actual import, and are detected as such at the time of clearance through the customs, no fresh licence will be issued to cover the goods. In cases where the validity of original licence has expired, the same will be revalidated to facilitate the reimport of such goods. (3) In the cases not covered by sub paras (1) and (2) above licensing authority may consider, on merits, applications for issue of replacement licenses. Such applications may be made in the form relevant to the category of the applicant concerned. "( 13 ) PARAGRAPH 345 ( 1) deals with the cases where imported goods are found to be defective or unfit for use or lost or damaged after import has been made. Paragraph 345 (1) provides that in replacement of such damaged or lost goods import can be made and cleared under Open General Licence No. 4. The said conditions contained in paragraph 345 (1) and those contained in Open General Licence will of course have to be adhered to. Sub para (2) of paragraph 345, however, is concerned with those types of cases, like the present, where the loss or short shipment or short landing is discovered at the time of clearance. In such cases the original licence if it has expired, is to be re-validated to facilitate the reimport of such goods, Sub para (3) provides of cases not covered by sub paras (1) and (2) to be considered by the licencing authority on merits. ( 14 ) REFERENCE may also be made, at this stage, to the provisions of Appendix 16 for the year 1979-80. Clause (5) of said Appendix 16 inter alia provided that goods could be ! imported which had been supplied free of charge by foreign suppliers or be imported against insurance (marine), claim settled by insurance company in replacement of the goods previously imported but were found defective or otherwise unfit for use or loss damage for import. Similar provision existed in Appendix 16 for the policy for the year 1982-83. ( 15 ) IT has been contended before me by counsel for the respondent, and this is one of the reasons given in the impugned order also, that the licence cannot be revalidated because item sought to be imported was in the banned list. Similar provision existed in Appendix 16 for the policy for the year 1982-83. ( 15 ) IT has been contended before me by counsel for the respondent, and this is one of the reasons given in the impugned order also, that the licence cannot be revalidated because item sought to be imported was in the banned list. ( 16 ) TO my mind there is no merit in this submission. Firstly, the expression banned list is really a misnomer because goods mentioned in the said list can in fact be imported against a licence. It is not that as if the goods mentioned in Appendix 3 or 4, cannot be imported at all. In fact in this case itself import of Oxy Tetracycline was allowed. The problem has arisen only because the said consignment could not be located and may have been lost in transit. Secondly, there is no dispute that originally the item was being validly imported in the year 1980-81. At that time Oxy Tetracycline was in Appendix 3 which contained the list of items whose import was otherwise banned. The position with regard to this item, namely, Oxy Tetracycline remained unchanged in the year 1982-83 as well. In that year also Oxy Tetracycline was in the list of banned items but, as already noted hereinabove it could be imported by virtue of the relevant provisions of Appendix 17. Therefore, merely because Oxy Tetracycline was an item in the banned list in the year 1982-83 cannot be a valid ground for refusing to revalidate the licence because that item was on the banned list even in the year 1979-80. The position in the two years, remained the same. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1987 SC 175 and also Rajparakash Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1021 . These cases have no application to the present case. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, was dealing with the items whose import had been banned but the importers therein were seeking to import the banned items and in those cases originally the import items which were sought to be imported have not been banned. Those items no doubt were put on the banned list subsequently. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, was dealing with the items whose import had been banned but the importers therein were seeking to import the banned items and in those cases originally the import items which were sought to be imported have not been banned. Those items no doubt were put on the banned list subsequently. It is under those circumstances the Supreme Court said that dealing with cases of additional licence, and not replacement licence, in the present case, that the importer cannot be permitted to import an item which had now been placed on the banned list at the time when the licence was sought for. In the present case at the time when their validation was asked for, the position regarding import of the item, namely, Oxy Tetracycline remained unchanged. This item was no doubt in the banned list of 1982-83 but it was also in the banned list at the time when its import was originally allowed in 1979-80. In 1979-80 as well as in 1982-83 the licence holder could, however import this item by virtue of the provisions of Appendix 17. Therefore, in law, it was in fact wrong to state that this item was on banned list as far as the petitioners were concerned. As regard the petitioners were concerned, the said item could be validly imported. ( 18 ) THE other two reasons which have been given by the first appellate authority in rejecting the application also are not valid. It is incorrect to state that in the present case there is a delay of one year and seven months for applying for revalidation. The facts enumerated above show that the claim was settled by the insurance company only in November, 1982. The application for revalidation, was made soon thereafter in January, 1983. To my mind there is no unreasonable delay. In any case under paragraph 345 (1) import under O. G. L. by way of replacement can be made within 24 months. In the present case, the goods were originally sought to be imported in July/ September, 1981. Taking the time of 24 months as an indication, the present application for revalidation was made within that time, and as such the petitioners application could not be "rejected on the ground of delay. ( 19 ) WITH regard to the insurance claim having been settled, that is not disputed. Taking the time of 24 months as an indication, the present application for revalidation was made within that time, and as such the petitioners application could not be "rejected on the ground of delay. ( 19 ) WITH regard to the insurance claim having been settled, that is not disputed. However, that is not the ground given in the import policy for rejecting the claim for revalidation. The settlement of the insurance claim only meant that the petitioners were not out of pocket. The payment of insurance claim did not mean that the petitioners could enjoy the fruits of the licence, namely, to be able to import the items specified in the import licence, to sell those goods imported and to make profit from them. The insurance money paid was only by way of compensation for the foreign exchange lost. It did not make good the loss of profit. ( 20 ) NO other contention has been raised before me. In my view, therefore, the reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the petitioners application for revalidation are not valid in law. ( 21 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to revalidate the licence of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioners will be entitled to costs.