High Court Karnataka High Court

Mukka Sea Food Industries vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mukka Sea Food Industries vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal


ms THE HEGH cow? 0? KAQNATAKA, _
QATED “ms ms. 24% gay’ arr JUEE,’ {:§”§;:::9″‘~:: 4- _ u
BEFORE ” ” V’ ‘
THE HONELE MR. v,r::J$’:*:éE;–« é;’;s–1TJ

WEE’? PETETEON No 9″:;=*48;};i:2″%ei*2E«* 20{:’3_'(c;Ar:i;-=P2E§’a;;

BETWEER

1

£2

MUKKA SEA F901;) 11\:t:>_U~;~¥2*.z;?:I:”::§s _ _ ..

FIRST FLOOR, TRENETYV ‘GQMPLEX” ‘ .. _ .

N G 1m:>AD,A’=r:fAvmv;, M’£~’+J}IC;AL€3-RE a3?500:
REPRESEN’ ‘BY =¥._*:*s:: F:v’;i~2’1’NEI~=;«.’1<;vV M.C}HAEv£MEG
HAm=2Is., :3/€;':jPsE%;DL.¥L Raga; ;x;«3E13,ABOUT

38 YE;§Rs_.."%j:vi Em, B?;A.jLg>¥’;%, U§’_,}Y’O{}NAGAR

VARAVAL, :;;L E13AZfaE<:, AGED $393? 38

4;Y?i:;,;R$, USKQEQYA BAG}-I NEAR MANGALA DEEVE
" .'«TE,3MPE,,EZ-, EMME–¥I.§'RE, CRGSS ROAB

" M;%E§{"§ALE

PETETEQNERS.

(B5,;-__s§;€ g;¢a:é:;é52;:;§:;§;1Jr»4m2 SHE??? K, A§>v.;

‘Vang

«,.i}NVE’G§’€ GE’ EN§§A
_§%EPEEiSE’;?€’§’ED BE’ ETS SECRETARY

” Ta} ma MEFJESTRE’ <22? CGMMERCE

SOUTH BLQCK, ?.:5;RLEAME§I'’v”T GP’ EITFNESE SC>L}’?H ELOCK
?fi.Q§J$?w’EEf*E’§.’ RQAEE, NEW DEZ§,H{

1%)

3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIOEER NEH
?ANAMB’£jR, NEW MANGALORE
AERPCBRT, MANGALORE, SK

4 THE SEEPERZNTENDENT 012′ cUsffozv;%3’s«1¥>f::Jci{S3′–.: ” [ i’
2;cH,mNGAwRE ~ ”

j 7;:§r;S.?01NDENTs.

{By Sam: L.£aI{SHMEG.ADV.,FOR _ ‘- ._
Sri Y. HAR§PRASAD,CkG.S:C. Feirzmfro-~-.t§4. 1

TEES WP, FILED U4I”~3i3TER” AND 22′? C)?’ THE
CONST§TUTI{3N, PRFKYING TO :NQTIF’§{:z5$..TF.C}N PASSED 8′? THE
RI PUBLISHED §N THE Gazmiz 0;? Eb-EDEA_ EXTRAGRDINARY PART H
SECTEGN 3 SUB.rSEC’TiOi’f {ii}IE\§’V.«¢N(}TiP§ICATI§}N UT. 1?.3.2C3OS VIBE
ANX-A AND fS5’3’UE§D BY THE R3 V133

DI.F$EG’¥7′[‘1’§~.%E ‘2’e;::&§2;s1I>::%;~é’E?»E.rJ’rs~~:~:’V§’ FISH 011. BELONGING TO THE
PET::’1’orsz._gRa~:’ LYi§sEC%-»,_EaT “-51EAN€3ALOR’E SEA PORT PANAMEUR,
MANGALQRE f<'OR"§'fH£:"§..;F'iI3R'*l?1$T§Ew'»¥F;" or? EXPORT TO JAPAN.

Tag PE""EI'i'1af3.Fs€ 's.–.:<:)*1-;at1i<a'*z.3V ON FOR PREL§MINaRY HEARING IN 'E'

GR{f}E§I{? '§'H.{S DAY', COURT MADE THE} FOLLOWING:

is an Aquatic Products. B031 the petitiormrs

are Ac1–:1sst§:m:j1n1:’gA{J:z£ notificafzi-an pubiished in the gazefte, 3 copy’ 0:?

ié péfiduflfid at Annexurmfi, 335% also 3 cémmunicaiion at

V’ The most qussticm is Whether fish oi}. is an edible 0&3

“= gg:__f:o:1~edible oi}. T136 patitignem pmpase to expert fish xvii. 3:11:

:. §1(}”?fi’¥!€i?I” the same was canfiscateti 011 {ha gmund that the same is

aediisltt oil and hence cannot be exported,

,%

2, Baring the penfiency of this Writ petitisn, €116 was

;)c:rmitte{i :0 export container containing fish

result of this writ petition. –

3′ when {ha matter ‘ta};e1_1 1115 * Ahttgfia}-?,
appearifig fimi me Central Gevsrifiifiérzt has§”mé;§ti\fi,;V-:21\??;a,:i1aVf3}c :51 001.535’
of that notificatian iss’ue€§v;::i13giica’i.ifi,Vg:A 0? fish oil S1133}

bfi aiioweci fmsly.

4. jg §;L?;1:é2;t.”‘t’1 @”i§L0tificatio11 would come
to the fish oil, the question of
sxaminfizgg ;afiii§r fi1:ftIf1r:’r is Supexfluaus.

?efitié;fi; accerdingiy.

,,._§;:§’\s”!vi:7a:§{>. W. /8? far productimx cf adciitiscamal d::3c11m:3:1ts

of.

Sd/ –

FUDGE

‘ ..F’£.’€