{"id":188529,"date":"2008-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-27T14:11:14","modified_gmt":"2014-10-27T08:41:14","slug":"ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/09\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.5701 of 2008\nW.P.(MD)Nos.5284,6108,6119,6188,6189,\n6324,6388, 6389 6438, 6455, of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2008 in W.P(MD).Nos.5284 , 5701, 6108 ,\n6188,  6189, 6324, 6388, 6389, 6438, 6455, 6119 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD).Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2 and 2 of 2008 in\nW.P(MD).Nos.5284, 5701,6108 6119,6188,\n6189,6324,6438,6455, of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD).Nos.3 and 3 of 2008 in W.P.(MD).Nos.5284 and 6108 of 2008\n\n\n1.M\/s.S.Mira Commodities Pvt., Ltd.,\n  Rep. by its Director Mr.Farook Shabbir Noorani,\n  601, C.Halima Apartments, 96, Morland Road,\n  Mumbai-400 008.\t\t    ...Petitioner in WP 5701\/08\n\n2.M\/s.S.Mira Group of Companies,\n  Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Farook Shabeer Noorani\n  337, Central Facility Building, A.P.M.C.Market-1,\n  Phase-II, Sector-19, Vashi,\n  Navi Mumbai-400705.\t\t    ..Petitioner in WP 6438\/08\n\n\n3.M\/s.Ayesha Commercial Trade Services,\n  Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Farook Shabeer Noorani,\n  601-c, Halima Apartments,\n  95, Morland Road,\n  Mumbai-400 008.                   ..Petitioner in WP 6455\/08\n\n4.M\/s.Radhakrishna Trading Co.,\n  Rep. by its Proprietor Vijay Sajnani,\n  Maskasath Square,\n  Sambhaji Kasar Road,\n  Itwari, Nagpur,\n  Maharashtra-440 002.\n                                    ..Petitioner in WPs 6119,6388\/08\n\n5.M\/s.Alyunus Exports Corporation,\n  Rep. by its Director Mr.Farook Shabbir Noorani,\n  337, Central Facility Building, A.P.M.C.Market-1,\n  Phase-II, Sector-19, Vashi,\n  Navi Mumbai-400 705.\t            ..Petitioner in WP 6189\/08\n\n6.M\/s.Empire Exports,\n  Rep. by its Director Mr.Bimal Kumar Modi,\n  1,Govind Chandra Dhar Lane,\n  Kolkatta-700 001\t\n\t\t\t            ..Petitioner in WP 6188\/08\n7.M\/s.Zhi Trading Company,\n  Rep. by its Proprietor\n  Mr.Shabbir Haji Issak Noorani,\n  601-c, Halima Apartments,\n  95, Morland Road,\n  Mumbai-400 008.           \t    .. Petitioner in WP.6324\/08\n\n8.M\/s.Unik Traders,\n  No.140, Old Tharagupet,\n  Bangalore by its Proprietor\n  Hanif Thara.              \t    ..Petitioner in WP 5284\/08\n\n9.M\/s.Shri Shiv Enterprises,\n  Chhottalal Madhavji Buildings\n  Itwari, Maharashtra,\n  Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Prakash Suchak.\n\t\t\t\t    ..Petitioner in WP 6108\/08\n\n10.M\/s.Anil Industries,\n   Chhikhli Layout,\n   Plot No.88, Kalamina Road,\n   Small Factory Area, Near\n   Thaukar Jarda, Nagpur,\n   Maharashtra-440 008.       \t    ..Petitioner in WP 6389\/08\n\nvs.\n\n1.Union of India,\n  Rep. by its Secretary,\n  Ministry of Commerce and Industry,\n  Department of Commerce,\n  Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.\n\n2.The Director General of Foreign Trade\n    and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary,\n  to Government of Commerce,\n  Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.\n\n3.The Commissioner of Customs,\n  Custom House, New Harbour Estate,\n  Tuticorin-628 004.\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t   ... Respondents in all the W.Ps\n\nPRAYER in 5701 of 2005\n\nWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring\nthe Policy condition in impugned Notification No.15(RE-2008)\/2004-2009, dated\n04.06.2008, (in respect of all W.Ps) issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as\nit restricts the free import of Betel Nuts only to those of value of Rs.35\/- per\nKilogram and above as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of\nthe rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.\n\n!For Petitioners   ...\tMr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel\n\t\t\tFor Mr.B.Satish Sundar,\n\t\t\t    Mr.A.K.Jayaraj,\n\t\t\t    and Mr.P.Dhanapal\n^For Respondents   ... \tMr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar\n\t\t\tAssistant Solicitor General \t\t\t\n\t\n                         *****\n<\/pre>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tThe prayer in all these writ petitions is for declaring the policy
\ncondition imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade vide its notification
\nNo.15     (RE-2008)\/2004-2009, dated 04.06.2008, insofar as it restricts the
\nfree trade of Betal nuts for a value of Rs.35\/ per kilo gram including C.I.F.
\nvalue (Cost, Insurance and Freight) by notification dated 04.06.2008 as
\nunconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tSince the questions raised in all these writ petitions are one and
\nthe same, they were all heard together and a common order is passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tHeard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the
\npetitioners and Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar  learned Assistant Solicitor General
\nand perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tAt the the time of admission in all these cases, interim orders were
\ngranted. It is only when the second respondent filed a vacate stay application
\nsupported by a counter affidavit, the matter was taken up for final hearing by
\nthe consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tIt is stated by the petitioners that the petitioners are all
\nimporters of betal nuts and spices.  The petitioners were importing betal nuts
\nfrom the countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka, since there is a great deal
\nof demand in India.  The local production in this country of betal nuts do not
\neven meet 10% of the demand of the manufacturers. Therefore, import of betal
\nnuts became a necessity as there is a wide spread requirement for such betal
\nnuts for the manufacture of Supari, Sugants and Pan masala.  The policy of betal
\nnuts is not restricted and even as per the impugned notification, the import is
\nmade free. Apart from this, there is 100% duty imposed by the Customs on the
\nimported betal nuts.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  The cost of purchase of such betel nuts normally varies between
\nRs.15\/- to Rs.20\/- in foreign countries.   This fact has been even admitted by
\nthe second respondent in the counter affidavit dated 01.08.2008, wherein it is
\nshown that the import price of betel nuts (whole) comes to Rs.15.50 paisa per
\nkilo gm and split betel nuts comes to Rs.13\/- per kilo gm.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tBy the impugned notification the importers were directed to import
\nthe betel nuts provided C.I.F. value of the betel nuts is provided at Rs.35\/-
\nper kg.  According to the petitioners, such a fixation of Rs.35\/- per kg. with
\nC.I.F. value is arbitrary and curtails the right of the importers under Articles
\n19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tIt is further contended that when import policy with reference to
\nparticular good namely betel nuts is a free policy, then there is no question of
\nrestricting the right of the importers and the policy introduced by the second
\nrespondent has no legal sanctity.  It is stated that in para:2.1 of the Foreign
\nTrade Policy ( for short ‘FTP’) provides exports and imports shall be free
\nexcept where regulated by FTP or other law for the time being in force.  Para
\n2.6 of the FTP, empowers the respondents to impose restrictions on imports by
\nway of notifications for achieving the following purposes only:-
\n“i. Protection of public morals.\n<\/p>\n
ii.Protection of human, animal or plant life or health.
\niii.Protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights and the prevention of
\ndeceptive practices.\n<\/p>\n
iv.Prevention of use of prison labour.\n<\/p>\n
v.Protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological
\nvalue.\n<\/p>\n
vi.Conservation of exhaustible natural resources.
\nvii.Protection of trade of fissionable material or material from which they are
\nderived; and
\nviii.Prevention of traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tSince the policy introduced by the impugned notification does not
\nadvance any of the causes listed above, the said policy is arbitrary.  It is
\nfurther submitted that the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation Act) 1992, (for
\nshort ‘FTDR’) does not authorise the second respondent to restrict the import of
\nbetel nuts on the basis of fixing a minimum import price. It is also stated that
\nthe petitioners have long term contracts with their foreign suppliers and
\npursuant to the contracts, goods have arrived in various ports and therefore,
\nthey should be allowed to import without insisting the price of the goods fixed
\nat Rs.35\/- (C.I.F) per kg.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tIn support of their submissions, the petitioners have also filed
\nvarious agreements between them and the foreign suppliers.  The trade
\ncommitments that they have with the foreign suppliers were also mentioned in
\nthose correspondences. It is in the light of these submissions, they wanted
\ntheir writ petitions to be allowed and consequently, the impugned notifications
\nshould be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tIn the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the said
\npolicy id sought to be supported on the basis that the low price of import of
\nbetel nuts was causing declining the domestic prices and consequential loss for
\nthe domestic betel nut growers.  This policy will prevent inferior quality of
\nthe betel nuts from being imported and also it will provide adequate
\nremunerative prices for the local growers.  By this protectionism, there will be
\na perfect competition in the home produce and imported betel nuts.  It will also
\ngenerate employment potentials and the notifications were issued setting forth
\nthe policy for the years 2004-2009 was in public interest and in exercise of
\npowers conferred under Section 5 of the F.T.D.R.Act,1992 read with para 2.1 of
\nthe F.T.P.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tIt is averred in para No:2.J of the counter affidavit, which is as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“…..Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the domestic growers of
\nbetel nut and to provide a level playing field to them and to ensure that the
\ndomestic prevailing price of betel nut does not fall down, the minimum floor
\nprice for import of betel nut has been fixed of Rs.35 per kgm and above vide
\nNotification No.15\/RE2008\/2004-2009, dated 04.06.2008.  Presently, the import
\nduty on betel nut is 100%. The floor price of betel nuts @ Rs.35 per Kg. coupled
\nwith 100% custom duty would result in the landed price of betel nut to  Rs.0.70
\nper kg, which is approximately at par with the rate prevailing during 2006-2007
\n(i.e.ranging from Rs.66 per kg. 75 per kg.) as reported by the Directorate of
\nArecanut and Species Development, Bangalore.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tIn the light of the above factual metrics Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior
\nCounsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)The second respondent DGFT has no power to issue
\n a policy in terms of Section 5 read with Section  6(3) of the FTDR, Act,1992.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)To test the validity of the impugned notifications the relative bearing of
\nthree enactments are to be looked into. They are Customs Act,1962, Customs
\nTariff Act,1975 and FTDR Act,1992. Each enactment places an assigned role and
\nthey must be read harmoniously and one cannot claim overriding effect over the
\nprovisions of other Acts.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)That in so far as the present policy is not based on any anti-dumping
\npolicy, the policy is arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)After introducing a free policy the second respondent cannot create an
\nartificial price fixing insofar as the local production satisfies only 10% of
\nthe requirement of the manufacturers.  There is no necessity to introduce such
\nartificial price fixing and label it as support price or floor pricing or Saving
\nthe local producers.\n<\/p>\n
(v)When admittedly the price available in the countries of import does not
\nexceed Rs,15\/- to Rs.20\/- per kg, there is no question of fixing the price at
\nRs.35\/- per kg (CIF).\n<\/p>\n
(vi)The importers of betel nuts such as the petitioners have not been informed
\nas to what should be done with the money which will be found in the excess of
\nthe cost of import. This will only lead to fictitious billing, which is not the
\nintention of a free import policy and it is not the power of Government to fix
\nany price under FTDR, Act.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)Fixing the value of goods can be done only under the Customs Act and
\nCustoms Tariff Act.  Those Acts also provide for an appointment of Directorate
\nGeneral of Safeguards. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provides for differential
\ntariff including imposition of increased import duties under Section 8A
\nimposition of Safe Guards Duty under Section 8B and anti-dumping duties under
\nSection 9A the Customs Tariff Act.  It also provides for an appeal under Section
\n9C.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)The customs Act also provides for appointment of Customs Officers to
\ndecide the value of the import. Therefore, where there are ample provisions
\nunder the special enactments, it is not open to the second respondent to issue a
\nnotification FTDR, Act, 1992 to bring an artificial price fixing for the
\nimported betel nuts.\n<\/p>\n
(ix)The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 6(3) only delegates
\ncertain powers on the DGFT and the present notification though claimed to have
\nissued under Section 5, such a delegation is not available to the second
\nrespondent in terms of Section 6(3) of the FTDR Act.  The power to frame a
\npolicy solely vests with the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
\nThough in the notification impugned, it refers to the Central Government
\namending Schedule I of Imports for the years 2004-2009, it is not a notification
\nissued by the Central Government. It only signed by the DGFT, who is also the ex
\nofficio Additional Secretary to Government.\n<\/p>\n
(x)In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, there is no
\nreference to the Central Government issuing the said policy and there is no
\ndetails regarding the Central Government’s decision mentioned therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tEven though a specific contention was raised in this regard, the
\nCentral Government has not taken any policy decisions in terms Section 3 read
\nwith Section 5 of the FTDR Act and there being no delegation permissible for
\nevolving such of policy in the light of Section 6(3) conferred on the second
\nrespondent, the impugned order to be set aside on this short ground alone.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tIn any event, when there is sufficient safeguard is provided under
\nthe special laws such as Customs Act as well as the Customs Tariff Act, it is
\nnot open to the respondents to invoke FTDR Act for making an artificial price
\nfixation.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tThe learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
\njudgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank V. Canara Bank<\/a> reported in AIR
\n2000 Supreme Court 1535 for the purpose of showing that at times a general law
\ncan be a specific law vis-a-vis a special law and it depends on the context.  He
\nrelied upon the following passage found in para:39, which is usefully extracted
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
“39.There can be a situation in law where the same statute is treated as a
\nspecial statute vis-a-vis one legislation and again as a general statute vis-a-
\nvis another legislation.  Such situations do arise as held in Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India V D.J.Bahadur, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 2181: (1980 Lab IC
\n1218. It was there observed.\n<\/p>\n
“for certain cases, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes, it may
\nbe special and the Court cannot blur a distinction when dealing with finer
\npoints of law.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tIn the light of the above, it was further submitted that the FTDR
\nAct cannot be a special law with reference to a price fixation of an imported
\ncommodity and the power is available only under the provisions of other two
\nenactments, i.e.the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tHe further submitted that even assuming that any policy guideline is
\nissued, such a guideline can be scrutinzed by this Court and it is not beyond
\nthe pale of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\nThe learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision of Supreme Court reported in
\nUnion of India and Others and Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, (2001)
\n8 SCC 491.  The learned counsel placed reliance upon the following passage found
\nin para 12 of the said order:-\n<\/p>\n
“12…There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one case that
\nwhere the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court
\nwill not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on
\nexpert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped
\nto question the correctness of a policy decision.  But then this does not mean
\nthat the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinize whether the policy in
\nquestion is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said
\npolicy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness,
\nbearing in mind the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tThe learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when in the
\ncounter affidavit it was admitted that the prevailing price of the betel nuts in
\nthe countries of origin was only Rs.13\/- to Rs.15\/- there is no question of
\nfixing the imported betel nuts @ Rs.35\/- in an artificial manner.  Protecting
\nthe local growers can be done only by either increasing the import duty or
\ntotally prohibiting the import.  Further, for making the contention that the
\nsub-standard goods will be brought in, there is no material produced by the
\nrespondents in support of that contentions.  Even otherwise, if the goods are
\nsubstandard, no manufacturers will buy such goods.  Therefore, the attempt of
\nthe Central Government is to lead support to certain monopolists, who were also
\ninvolved in using the betel nuts as raw metals in their production.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tPer contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General relied upon the
\ncontentions raised in the counter affidavit and also relied upon certain
\ndecisions of the Supreme Court in support of his arguments.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.\tHe referred to case of Dhargham Oils Pvt Ltd & another Vs. Union of
\nIndia reported in 1995 (1) SCC 345 for a proposition that the Government can
\namend the policy of import even though there may be concluded  contract with a
\nforeign supplier.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tHe also cited the judgment in S.B.International Ltd Vs Assistant
\nDirector of Foreign Trade reported in 1996 (2) SCC 439 that the principles of
\npromissory estoppel are not applicable in deciding the validity of a Foreign
\nTrade Policy.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tHe further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
\nP.T.R.Export (Madras) Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India and others and relied upon the
\nfollowing passages found in paras:4 and 5:-\n<\/p>\n
“4.an applicant has no vested right to have export or import licences in terms
\nof the policies in force at the date of his making application.  For obvious
\nreasons, granting of licences depends upon the policy prevailing on the date of
\nthe grant of the licence or permit.  The authority concerned may be in a better
\nposition to have the overall picture of diverse factors to grant permit or
\nrefuse to grant permission to import or export goods.  The decision, therefore,
\nwould be taken from diverse economic perspectives which the executive is in a
\nbetter informed position unless, as we have stated earlier, the refusal is mala
\nfide or is an abuse of the power in which event it is for the applicant to plead
\nand prove to the satisfaction of the court that the refusal was vitiated by the
\nabove factors.\n<\/p>\n
\t5….. When the Government is satisfied that change in the policy was
\nnecessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and
\nlay down new policy.  The Court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to
\nthe Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon
\nthe same.  Equally, the Government is left free to determine priorities in the
\nmatters of allocations or allotment or utilisation of its finances in the public
\ninterest.  It is equally, entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify
\nthe export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24.\tHe further submitted that the Foreign Trade Policy expressed in the
\nimpugned notification is not susceptible for a judicial review and referred to
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court in State of N.C.T of Delhi and another Vs.
\nSanjeev alias Bittoo reported in 2005 Supreme Court 2080. He placed reliance
\nupon the following passages found in paras:15 and 16:-\n<\/p>\n
“15….In the purported exercise of its discretion, it must not do what it has
\nbeen forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorised to do.  It
\nmust act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must
\nnot be influenced by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote
\npurposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it
\npower to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously.  These several
\nprinciples can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: (i) failure to
\nexercise a discretion, and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two
\nclasses are not, however, mutually exclusive.  Thus, discretion may be
\nimproperly fettered because irrelevant considerations have been taken into
\naccount, and where an authority hands over its discretion to another body it
\nacts ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
16.The present trend of judicial opinion is to restrict the doctrine of immunity
\nfrom judicial review to those classes of cases which relate to de-ployment of
\ntroupes, entering into international treaties, etc.  The distinctive features of
\nsome of these recent cases signify the willingness of the Courts to assert their
\npower to scrutinize the factual basis upon which discretionary powers have been
\nexercised.  One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which
\nadministrative action is subject to control by judicial review.  The first
\nground is ‘illegality’ the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural
\nimpropriety’.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25.\tIt is not clear as to how the citations referred to by the Assistant
\nSolicitor General will help the case of the respondents.  The notifications
\nimpugned in these writ petitions are without jurisdiction and made without any
\napplication of mind and they are liable to be set aside by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.\tThis Court has already found that the second respondent has no power
\nto issue the notification under Section 5 read with 6(3) of the FTDR Act.
\nFurther, that the price fixing on an artificial basis cannot be done and that
\ntoo under the FTDR Act. It has to be done in the light of the enactments such as
\nthe Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act.  No material data have been
\nfurnished for arriving at the figure of Rs.35\/- per kilo (CIF) for the betel
\nnuts imported.  When the market for betel nuts requires 90% import and the free
\nimport policy has been evolved for such an import, the present notification goes
\ncontrary to such policy.  It also makes the importers to commit further
\nillegalities of retention of amounts in Foreign Countries.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.\tThe other argument that sub-standard material are imported is not
\nsupported by any records.  Further any sub-standard materials will be rejected
\nby the Customs Department and even by the manufacturers who placed orders with
\nthe importers.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.\tIn the light of the above, all these writ petitions will stand
\nallowed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.  All the connected M.P.s
\nare closed.\n<\/p>\n
ssm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary,
\n  Union of India,
\n  Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
\n  Department of Commerce,
\n  Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Director General of Foreign Trade
\n    and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary,
\n  to Government of Commerce,
\n  Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Commissioner of Customs,
\n  Custom House, New Harbour Estate,
\n  Tuticorin-628 004.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/09\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.5701 of 2008 W.P.(MD)Nos.5284,6108,6119,6188,6189, 6324,6388, 6389 6438, 6455, of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2008 in W.P(MD).Nos.5284 , 5701, 6108 , 6188, 6189, 6324, 6388, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3230,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008"},"wordCount":3230,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008","name":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-27T08:41:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-s-mira-commodities-pvt-vs-union-of-india-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.S.Mira Commodities Pvt. vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}