{"id":201167,"date":"2007-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-09-27T01:16:07","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T19:46:07","slug":"ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2378 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Taarika Exports and Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India and Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.       2378          OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25852 of 2005)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
\nDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters
\nPatent Appeal filed against the order of a learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
4.\tA show cause notice was issued to the appellants under
\nSection 4L of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (in
\nshort the ‘Act’) for action under Section 4-I and under clause
\n10 for action under clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order,
\n1955 (in short ‘Control Order”) read with Section 20(2) of the
\nForeign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (in short
\n“Foreign Trade Act”)  for not exporting the goods as also
\nutilizing the imported goods and failure to export within the
\nstipulated time.  The appellants during the material point of
\ntime were engaged in the import and export activities under
\nthe Import and Export Code. On 13.10.1991 the Regional
\nLicensing Authority had issued an advance licence to the
\nappellants. The appellants undisputedly used the license in
\nfull so far as the import of raw materials thereunder free of
\ncustoms duty is concerned but only a part of the finished
\ngoods under the said licence was exported. Resultantly, there
\nwas a shortfall on account of export obligation. Appellants
\nsubmitted that the conditions under the licence were
\nunrealistic and, therefore, non-fulfillment of the obligation was
\nbeyond their control. The show cause notice in question was
\nissued on 7.5.1995 proposing, inter alia, imposition of fiscal
\npenalty for non fulfillment of export obligation under the
\nlicence as well as for mis-utilization of the goods valued at
\nRs.9,10,125\/- imported under the said licence free of customs
\nduty. Appellants submitted their reply to the show cause
\nnotice. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (in
\nshort ‘DGFT’) passed an order dated 13.11.1995 imposing a
\npenalty of Rs.45 lakhs for shortfall in export obligation to the
\nextent of Rs.27,20,462\/-. An appeal was preferred before the
\nAppellate Committee. By order dated 12.8.1997 the Appellate
\nCommittee dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
\nSubsequently, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) before
\nthe Delhi High Court. The writ petition was numbered as CWP.
\n623 of 1998. By judgment and order dated 30.5.2003 learned
\nSingle Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there
\nwas no ground to interfere with the orders of the adjudicating
\nauthority as well as the Appellate Committee. A Letters Patent
\nAppeal was filed which as noted above was dismissed by a
\nDivision Bench.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tStand of the appellants is that what was really alleged
\nrelated to a technical non-compliance of an export obligation.
\nSuch a compliance cannot be expected and demanded as the
\nsame was impossible to be done on the basis of quantity of
\nraw materials that the appellants were allowed to import
\nunder the concerned licence.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
\nsubmitted that the authorities below and the High Court have
\nclearly noted the infractions and the penalty imposed was
\nwithin the permissible limit of Section 4-I(1) of the Act read
\nwith Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tRelevant portions of the show cause notice read as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“1. You had obtained an advance licence
\nNo.0300410 dated 13.10.1991 for a cif value of US$
\n40,400 for import of the following items:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tDupion Yarn 1210 Kgs.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tMulberry Raw Silk  75.00 Kgs.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFusing lining anatrial 6750 Kgs.\n<\/p>\n
2. The said licence was issued from the office of Jt.
\nDGFT, Bombay. The above said licence was issued
\nto you.  Subject, inter alia, to the following
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
(1) You would export 5400 Nos. of
\nMulberry mixed jackets\/blazer with
\nfussing lining material for an fob value of
\nRs.36,42,800\/- (US$ 1,41,603.66) within
\na period of nine months from the date of
\nclearance of the first consignment.\n<\/p>\n
(2) To ensure fulfillment of export
\nobligation you would, before clearance of
\nthe first consignment, execute a
\nbond\/LUT.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The goods imported against the said
\nadvance licence would be utilized
\nexclusively in the manufacturing of the
\nresultant products.\n<\/p>\n
(4) In the event of the licencee falling (a)
\nto fulfill the export obligation within the
\nprescribed time limit stipulated above or\n<\/p>\n
(b) to produce the prescribed
\ndocuments\/information within 30 days
\nafter the expiry of the export obligation
\nperiod; the bond\/LUT agreement
\ncondition shall be enforced and the
\nlicencee shall be liable to the different
\nfollow up, penal actions prescribed in the
\nImport Export Police and Handbook of
\nprocedure 1992-93. The licensee shall
\nalso pay without demur to the customs
\nauthorities the concerned duty on the
\nproportionate quantity of goods
\ncorresponding to the products not
\nexported. Any shortfall will also be liable
\nto adjustment from any application for
\nlicence pending in this office or received
\nin future.\n<\/p>\n
(5) The action in clause 4 shall be without
\nprejudice to any other action that may be
\ntaken against the licencee under the
\nImport and Export (Control) Act, 1947
\nand Import (Control) Order dated
\n07.10.1955 as amended.\n<\/p>\n
3. In terms of the above conditions you executed an
\nindemnity -cum-guarantee bond with the licencing
\noffice on 14.01.1992. It is observed that you
\nrequested the Jt. DGFT, Bombay on 21.02.1992 for
\namendment of licence to import only dupion yarn
\n1100 kgs. and mulberry raw silk of 250 Kgs. and
\ndelete item at Sl. No. 3 fusing lining material of CIF
\nvalue of US$ 6,750\/- and committed to fulfil the
\nexport of resultant product for an fob value of US$
\n1,41,603.66 and also to amend the export
\ndescription i.e., mulberry mixed silk garments
\n(shorts, pants, blazers and skirts) containing dupion
\nyarn of 1100 kgs. and mulberry raw silk of 250 Kgs.
\nThe request was considered by Jt. DGFT, Bombay
\non 31.03.1992 and the licence was accordingly
\namended.\n<\/p>\n
4. According to information available on record and
\nin the absence of any documentary evidence
\nfurnished by you, it is evident that you had made
\nimport 1177.00 Kgs. of dupion yarn and mulberry
\nraw silk 70.00 kgs. against the said advance licence
\nin January 1992. However, you had exported 2429
\npcs. of mulberry silk garments weighing dupion
\nyarn  33.141 kgs. and 78.889 of mulberry raw silk
\nfor fob value of Rs.9,62,337.92 and failed to export
\nthe remaining quantity of 2971 pcs for fob value of
\nRs.27,20,452\/- within the stipulated time. Vide
\nletter dated 22.12.92 you made a request to Jt.
\nDGFT Bombay office for grant of extension of six
\nmonths enabling them to export the balance
\nquantity by 30.04.1993. You again applied to Jt.-
\nDGFT Bombay office for another extension which
\nwas rejected by RALC in its meeting held on
\n09.04.1993. As such the period of export obligation
\nexpired on 30.04.1993. Subsequently you
\napproached this office advance licensing committee
\nseveral times for extension in export obligation
\nperiod against the subject advance licence but your
\nrequest was rejected every time. You were also
\nadvised by this office on 29.11.94 to produce
\ncertain documents\/information in r\/o. advance
\nlicence in question. You sent your reply on
\n05.12.1994 and supplied this office photocopies of
\nadvance licences relating to earlier advance licences
\nand other related documents but failed to produce
\nthe requisite documents in r\/o the advance licence
\nin question. However, you were again reminded on
\n02.02.1995 to furnish the requisite
\ninformation\/documents. In reply to this office letter,
\nyou furnished the photocopies of bank certificate of
\nexport and realization, etc. but again you failed to
\nsend us the requisite information \/ documents.”\n<\/p>\n
The adjudicating authority inter-alia noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The said licence was issued to them by the office of
\nthe Joint Director General of Foreign Trade,
\nBombay, subject, inter-alia, to the following
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThey would export 5400Nos. of mulberry
\nmixed silk jackets\/blazer viith fusion lining
\nmaterial for an FOB value of Rs.36,42,800\/-
\n(US$ 1,41,603.66) within a period of nine
\nmonths from the date of clearance of first
\nconsignment.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tTo ensure fulfillment of export obligation they
\nwould, before clearance of the first
\nconsignment, execute a bond for Rs.\n<\/p>\n
42,74,529.16 with Bank Guarantee for Rs.
\n5,91,729.16.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe goods imported against the said Advance
\nlicence would be utilized exclusively in the
\nmanufacturing of the resultant product.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  In the even of their failure (A) to fulfill the
\nexport obligation within the prescribed time
\nlimit stipulated above or (B) to produce the
\nprescribed documents\/information within 30
\ndays after the expiry of the export obligation
\nperiod, the bond\/LUT agreement condition
\nshall be enforced and the licensee shall be
\nliable to the different follow up, penal actions
\nprescribed in the import-export police and
\nhandbook of procedures, 1990  93. The
\nlicensee shall also pay, without demur to the
\ncustoms authorities, the concerned duty on
\nthe proportionate quantity of goods
\ncorresponding to the products not exported.
\nAny shortfall will also be liable to adjustment
\nfrom any application for licence pending in
\nthat office or received in future.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The action in clause (iv) shall be without
\nprejudice to any other action that may be
\ntaken against the licensee under the Import
\n(Control) Order, 1955, as amended.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe Appellate Committee also analysed the position and
\nconcurred with the view expressed by the adjudicating
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWe find that the authorities have analysed the factual
\nposition in detail and have concluded that there was
\ninfractions of the conditions imposed under the licence. It is to
\nbe noted that before the learned Single Judge a plea was taken
\nthat the goods are still lying with the appellants. There was no
\nquestion of the appellants having used or utilized them in
\nviolation of the conditions imposed by the licence.  Learned
\nSingle Judge noted that no such plea was taken by the party
\nearlier. Neither in the reply to the show cause notice nor
\nbefore the Appellate Committee such a plea had been taken.
\nBefore this Court also an attempt was made to submit that the
\ngoods are lying in stock and, therefore, there was no question
\nof utilization. No material in this regard is produced before the
\nauthorities as was rightly observed by the learned Single
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe penal provision is contained in Section 4-I(1) of the
\nAct. The same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“4-I(1).  Liability to penalty.- Any person who,<\/p>\n
(a) in relation to any goods or materials which have
\nbeen imported under any licence or letter of
\nauthority, uses or utilizes such goods or materials
\notherwise than in accordance with the conditions of
\nsuch licence or letter of authority;  shall be liable to
\npenalty not exceeding five times the value of goods
\nor materials, or one thousand rupees, whichever is
\nmore, whether or not such goods or materials have
\nbeen confiscated or are available for confiscation.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe stand that the conditions were incapable of
\ncompliance seems to be at variance with the stand taken
\nearlier. By letter dated 22.12.1992 appellants made a request
\nto the Regional Licensing Authority for grant of extension of
\nsix months to enable them to export the balance quantity by
\n30.4.1993. They again applied to the Joint Director General of
\nForeign Trade, Bombay Office for further extension. The same
\nwas rejected. Period of export obligation expired on 30.4.1993.
\nSubsequently, the appellants approached DGFT office several
\ntimes for extension of export obligation period which was
\nrejected. Therefore, the plea that the conditions were incapable
\nof compliance has been rightly turned down by the authorities
\nand the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tFinally, it was submitted that considering the value of the
\narticles involved, imposition of penalty of Rs.45 lakhs is
\nextremely high.  The minimum penalty provided is Rs.1,000\/-
\nand the maximum is five times of the value of goods involved.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tConsidering the value of the articles involved we are of
\nthe view that penalty of Rs.20 lakhs instead of Rs.45 lakhs
\nwould meet the ends of justice.  It is submitted that pursuant
\nto the order of this Court dated 9.12.2005 a sum of Rs.20
\nlakhs had been deposited by the appellants. If that is so, there
\nshall not be requirement of making any further deposit.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 Author: . Arijit Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2378 of 2007 PETITIONER: M\/s Taarika Exports and Anr RESPONDENT: Union of India and Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - 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-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T19:46:07+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=\"10 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-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T19:46:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T19:46:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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 Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - 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-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T19:46:07+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T19:46:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007"},"wordCount":2001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007","name":"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T19:46:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-taarika-exports-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-7-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Taarika Exports And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/201167","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=201167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}