Disposed

M/S.Banan Global Trading v. the Union of India

Madras HC5 Sept 2018WP(MD)/4530/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking to quash a notification restricting apple imports was closed as the government had already amended the policy to allow imports via sea ports, resolving the dispute without adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed after recording that the respondents were now permitting the petitioner to import apples through the port of Tuticorin based on a new notification.

M/S.Banan Global Trading Vs the Union of India — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.4530 of 2016 and M.P.(MD).No. 4110 of 2016

¶3

M/s.Banan Global Trading, rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.Manzoor P.M. No.477-C, Gandhi Nagar West, Thakottukara Post, Thrissur, Kerala – 680 501. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi. 2.The Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi. 3.The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House – New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004, Tamil Nadu. .. Respondents

¶4

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the impugned notification of the 2^nd respondent in the notification No.30/2015-2020, dated 12.01.2016 in F.No.01/89/180/0079/AM-99/PC-2 (A) and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit import and clearance of apples by the petitioner through the port of Tuticorin.

¶5

For petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail for Veera Associates For 1^st respondent : Mr.P.Paul Pandi, CGSC For 2^nd respondent : Mr.G.Gomathi Shankar For 3^rd respondent : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy

¶6

ORDER

¶7

When this writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel appearing for both sides submitted that as per the notification No.56/2015-2020 / New Delhi, dated 27.03.2018, the

¶8

¶9

Central Government has amended the import policy conditions of apples under Exim code 0808 10 00 of Chapter 08 of ITC (HS), 2017 and thereby, allowed the imports of apples through sea ports, airports and India's land borders and that based on the said notification, the respondents are now permitting the petitioner to import the apples through the port of Tuticorin and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication.

¶10

2.Recording the above submission, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶11

Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/

¶12

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶13

¶14

1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi.

¶15

2.The Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi.

¶16

3.The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House – New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004, Tamil Nadu.

¶17

+1cc to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate, SR.No.88388

¶18

W.P(MD)No.4530 of 2016 01.10.2018

¶19

GCG

¶20

KK/RP/SAR-4/24.10.2018/2P-5C

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Banan Global Trading v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Banan Global Trading v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riswana Begum, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Soma Sekhar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.Dhanapackiathai, Vs Secretary to Government

K.Damodharan, Secretary, Vs the Director General of Police

N.Sundar, Vs State Rep.by Its

Paramasivam Pillai, Vs the Commissioner