{"id":158433,"date":"2007-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-10-27T22:12:28","modified_gmt":"2018-10-27T16:42:28","slug":"u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Bhan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1389-1392 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nU.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Customs and Central Excise &amp; Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN &amp; V.S. SIRPURKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>ASHOK BHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 06th December 2001<br \/>\npassed by the Customs, Excise &amp; Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Now<br \/>\nknown as Customs, Excise &amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) [for short, `the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;] in Appeal No.C\/39-41\/2001-A filed by the appellants and<br \/>\nNo.C\/372\/2001-A filed by the Revenue whereby and whereunder the Tribunal,<br \/>\nwhile dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, accepted the appeal<br \/>\nfiled by the Revenue and enhanced the amount of penalty under Section 114A<br \/>\nof the Customs Act, 1962 (for short `the Act&#8217;) from Rs.50,000\/- as imposed<br \/>\nby the Commissioner of Customs, Goa to Rs.10,00,000\/- and the redemption<br \/>\nfine under Section 125 of the Act from Rs.2,50,000\/- to Rs.<br \/>\n10,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The assessee-appellants herein had imported Integrated Circuits (ICs)<br \/>\nfrom a firm in Hong Kong by declaring the value of the consignment at HK<br \/>\n$40,492.49. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) authorities at Goa<br \/>\nexamined the consignment and upon examination thereof, found certain<br \/>\nstickers and labels indicative of the particulars of the manufacture and<br \/>\ntransport of the goods by air etc. inside the cartons in which ICs were<br \/>\npacked. After investigation, the authorities found that ICs had been<br \/>\nmanufactured by M\/s. Philips Ltd., M\/s. Motorola (I) Ltd. and M\/s. NEC.<br \/>\nThey sought information from the concerned manufacturers as to the cost of<br \/>\nthe ICs. Manufacturers of six out of the seven varieties of ICs furnished<br \/>\nthe said information to the authorities. Based upon the said information,<br \/>\nthe authorities came to the conclusion that the declared price of the goods<br \/>\nwas undervalued. Hence, after adding 10% towards profit of the dealer in<br \/>\nHong Kong, the authorities fixed the value of the goods at Rs.23.4 Lac as<br \/>\nagainst the declared value of over 2.3 Lac (CIF Goa). On the said value<br \/>\nfixed by the authorities, the differential duty of Rs.4,91,000\/- was<br \/>\ndemanded and paid by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. While framing the assessment, the authority in original levied a penalty<br \/>\nof Rs.50,000\/- under Section 114A of the Act on the firm and Rs.50,000\/- on<br \/>\nthe proprietor of the firm under Section 112 of the Act. Redemption fine of<br \/>\nRs.2,50,000\/- under Section 125 of the Act was also imposed on the firm.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed separate appeals before the<br \/>\nTribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and<br \/>\naccepted the appeal filed by the Revenue and enhanced the amount of penalty<br \/>\non the proprietor of the firm to Rs.10,00,000\/-. The penalty imposed on the<br \/>\nfirm was set aside. Insofar as the redemption fine is concerned, the same<br \/>\nwas enhanced to Rs.10,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up<br \/>\nin appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not<br \/>\neither dispute the value of the goods which was fixed by the authorities<br \/>\nat Rs.23.4 Lac or the amount of differential duty. He has not disputed the<br \/>\nculpability of the appellants as well. The only point raised by him is<br \/>\nregarding the enhancement of the amount of penalty as well as the<br \/>\nredemption fine.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In this context it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant<br \/>\nsections, viz., Section 114A and Section 125 of the Act which read as under<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;114A. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases.-Where<br \/>\nthe duty has not been levied or has not been short- levied or the interest<br \/>\nhas not been charged or paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest<br \/>\nhas been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-<br \/>\nstatement or suppression of facts, the person who is liable to pay the duty<br \/>\nor interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-section (2) of<br \/>\nsection 28 shall, also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty or<br \/>\ninterest so determined:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that where such duty or interest, as the case may be, as<br \/>\n\tdetermined under sub-section (2) of section 28, and the interest<br \/>\n\tpayable thereon under section 28AB, is paid within thirty days from<br \/>\n\tthe date of the communication of the order of the proper officer<br \/>\n\tdetermining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by<br \/>\n\tsuch person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent of the<br \/>\n\tduty or interest, as the case may be, so determined:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the<br \/>\n\tfirst proviso shall be available subject to the condition that the<br \/>\n\tamount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the<br \/>\n\tperiod of thirty days referred to in that proviso:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided also that where the duty or interest determined to be<br \/>\n\tpayable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the<br \/>\n\tAppellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the<br \/>\n\tpurposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced or<br \/>\n\tincreased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided also that where the duty or interest determined to be<br \/>\n\tpayable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate<br \/>\n\tTribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of<br \/>\n\treduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the<br \/>\n\tamount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the<br \/>\n\tinterest payable thereon under section 28AB, and twenty-five per<br \/>\n\tcent of the consequential increase in penalty have also been paid<br \/>\n\twithin thirty days of the communication of the order by which such<br \/>\n\tincrease in the duty or interest takes effect:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided also that where any penalty has been levied under this<br \/>\n\tsection, no penalty shall be levied under section 112 or section\n<\/p>\n<p>\t114.<\/p>\n<p>\tExplanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tthe provisions of this section shall also apply to cases in which<br \/>\nthe order determining the duty or interest under sub-section (2) of section<br \/>\n28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act,<br \/>\n2000 receives the assent of the President;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tany amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to<br \/>\nthe date of communication of the order referred to in the first proviso or<br \/>\nthe fourth proviso shall be adjusted against the total amount due from such<br \/>\nperson.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.-(1) Whenever confiscation<br \/>\nof any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in<br \/>\nthe case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited<br \/>\nunder this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and<br \/>\nshall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or,<br \/>\nwhere such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody<br \/>\nsuch goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such<br \/>\nfine as the said officer thinks fit:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso<br \/>\n\tto sub-section(2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the<br \/>\n\tmarket price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported<br \/>\n\tgoods the duty chargeable thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-<br \/>\nsection (1) the owner such goods or the person referred to in sub-<br \/>\nsection(1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in<br \/>\nrespect of such goods.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the maximum penalty<br \/>\nwhich could be imposed under Section 114A of the Act can be equal to the<br \/>\nduty demanded which, in the present case, was Rs.4,91,000\/- whereas the<br \/>\nTribunal has enhanced it to Rs.10,00,000\/-. It is further submitted by him<br \/>\nthat under Section 125 of the Act the Commissioner could impose the fine in<br \/>\nlieu of confiscation as he deemed fit but it could not exceed the market<br \/>\nprice of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty<br \/>\nchargeable thereon. According to him, the fine under the said Section has<br \/>\nbeen increased to Rs. 10,00,000\/- without ascertaining the market value of<br \/>\nthe goods confiscated.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the<br \/>\nfirst submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the amount<br \/>\nof penalty could not be more than the amount equal to the duty chargeable.<br \/>\nA bare perusal of Section 114A makes it clear that the liability to pay<br \/>\npenalty can be equal to the amount of duty and could not exceed the payable<br \/>\nduty. Hence, the penalty imposed was against the express provisions of law.<br \/>\nIn these circumstances, we reduce the amount of penalty under Section 114A<br \/>\nto Rs.4.91,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Although we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the<br \/>\nTribunal had enhanced the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation to<br \/>\nRs.10,00,000\/- without determining the market price of the goods in<br \/>\nquestion on the date of imposing the fine, but, in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order<br \/>\nof the Tribunal insofar as the enhancement of the said fine is concerned,<br \/>\nas it is evident from the facts placed before us that the market price of<br \/>\nthe goods could not be less than Rs.10,00,000\/-. Admittedly, the value of<br \/>\nthe goods has been fixed at Rs.23.4 Lac, which includes the profit of the<br \/>\ndealer, as against the declared value of more than Rs.2.3 Lac (CIF Goa).<br \/>\nThe purchase price would be deemed to be Rs.23.4 Lac minus 10% which was<br \/>\nadded as profit of the dealer which comes to Rs.21,06,000\/- approx. Under<br \/>\nthe circumstances, it cannot be said that the market price of the goods was<br \/>\nnot known or determinable. Even otherwise, taking a common sense view, we<br \/>\nconclude that the market price of the goods, on the date of imposition of<br \/>\nfine, could not be less than the purchase price thereof. Even if it is<br \/>\nassumed that the appellants sold the goods at a loss, it could not be less<br \/>\nthan half of the purchase price.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are disposed of in the above<br \/>\nterms. The Department shall now proceed with the computation of the amount<br \/>\ndue towards penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of this<br \/>\norder.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 2007 Author: A Bhan Bench: Ashok Bhan, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1389-1392 of 2002 PETITIONER: U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise &amp; Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2007 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN &amp; [&hellip;]<\/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-158433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-27T16:42:28+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-27T16:42:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"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\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\",\"name\":\"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-27T16:42:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 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":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-27T16:42:28+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-27T16:42:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007"},"wordCount":1729,"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\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007","name":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 22 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-27T16:42:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-k-enterprises-anr-vs-commissioner-of-customs-and-on-22-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.K. Enterprises &amp; Anr vs Commissioner Of Customs And &#8230; on 22 November, 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\/158433","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=158433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}