{"id":158672,"date":"2001-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001"},"modified":"2016-03-13T13:25:21","modified_gmt":"2016-03-13T07:55:21","slug":"commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7602  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s.Punjab Stainless Steel Industries\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/07\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal &amp; Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Y.K.SABHARWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent, in discharge of its export obligation under quantity<br \/>\nbased advance licence, filed shipping bills for export of stainless steel<br \/>\nutensils.  One of the conditions of licence was that the utensils shall be made<br \/>\nof AISI-202 quality stainless steel by using the raw material &#8220;non-magnetic<br \/>\nstainless steel sheets\/coils AISI-202 &#8211; indigenous&#8221; under proper declaration.<br \/>\nThe allegations against the respondent was that the goods exported under the<br \/>\nexport obligation were misdeclared inasmuch as the respondent had used the<br \/>\nmaterial of inferior grade to the one required in the manufacture of utensils.<br \/>\nThe Commissioner of Customs came to the conclusion that the charge<br \/>\nagainst the respondent had been proved.\t The Commissioner for his<br \/>\nconclusion relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner.  The demand of<br \/>\nthe respondent for retesting of samples was declined but in order to obviate<br \/>\nany unfair treatment to the respondent, the Commissioner gave option to the<br \/>\nrespondent to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner who had tested the<br \/>\nsamples.  The respondent, however, did not avail that option and declined to<br \/>\ncross examine the Chemical Examiner.  Regarding the objection of the<br \/>\nrespondent that copies of shipping bills were not supplied, the Commissioner<br \/>\nobserved that so long as report of the test conducted on the samples drawn<br \/>\nfrom the respective consignments establishing that the grade of material<br \/>\nused in the utensils exported under these consignments was substandard, was<br \/>\nsupplied to the respondent, it was immaterial whether copy of the shipping<br \/>\nbills was supplied or not.  After detailed examination of the record, the<br \/>\nCommissioner held that the charge of mis-statement and suppressing the<br \/>\ncorrect quality and grade of the input under claim of duty exemption<br \/>\nentitlement under quantity based advance licence and DEEC Book in<br \/>\nviolation of the standard input-output and value addition norms mentioned<br \/>\ntherein stood established in respect of 67 out of 88 consignments.  The<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs by order dated 3rd November, 1997 held that the<br \/>\ngoods amounting to Rs.6,74,43,408\/- are liable to confiscation under Section<br \/>\n113(n) and (j) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, &#8216;the Act&#8217;).\t Further, the<br \/>\nbank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000\/- was ordered to be appropriated against the<br \/>\nliability of confiscation as the goods had already been exported.  The<br \/>\nrespondent was also denied the benefit of the amount of Rs.4,68,78,932\/-<br \/>\nunder DEEC Scheme and duty drawback in respect of these consignments<br \/>\ndirecting that if these concessions have already availed by the respondent,<br \/>\nthe same shall be reversed.  Further, a penalty of Rs.25,00,000\/- was<br \/>\nimposed on the respondent under Section 114 of the Act read with Section<br \/>\n11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe order of the Commissioner was challenged by the respondent by<br \/>\npreferring appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order has set aside the order of the<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs.  Under these circumstances, appeal under<br \/>\nSection 130E of the Act has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has<br \/>\nraised objection about the maintainability of the appeal contending that since<br \/>\nthe present case does not involve determination of any question having a<br \/>\nrelation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of the goods for the<br \/>\nassessment and, therefore, appeal under Section 130E of the Act is not<br \/>\ncompetent.  Learned counsel contends that if the appellant was aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe order of the Tribunal, it ought to have taken recourse to the remedy of<br \/>\nreference as provided in Section 130 of the Act and further if aggrieved from<br \/>\nthe order made on  reference, it could approach this Court by filing a petition<br \/>\nunder Article 136 for grant of leave.  Learned Attorney General, without<br \/>\ngoing into the question of maintainability, submits that the present appeal<br \/>\nmay be treated as a special leave petition and in support places reliance upon<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/138258\/\">Commissioner of Central Excise &amp; Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd.<\/a><br \/>\n[(2000) 4 SCC 206] where rejecting the similar objection about the<br \/>\nmaintainability of the appeals under the Central Excise Act, the appeals were<br \/>\ndirected to be converted into special leave petitions and dealt with on merits.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances of this case and also considering that this matter has<br \/>\nbeen pending in this Court for nearly two years, we convert this appeal into<br \/>\nspecial leave petition, grant leave and proceed to decide the appeal on<br \/>\nmerits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe order of the Commissioner of Customs has been set aside by the<br \/>\nTribunal holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice on<br \/>\naccount of two reasons, namely, (1) Rejection of the request of the<br \/>\nrespondent for retesting the samples on the ground that there is no such<br \/>\nprovision in the Act and (2) Non-supply of the copy of the shipping bills.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRegarding the first reason, noticing the contention urged on behalf of<br \/>\nthe Revenue that there is no provision which permits retesting of samples,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal states that there is also no provision under the Customs Act<br \/>\nwhich prohibits retesting of the samples, and accordingly holding that the<br \/>\ndenial of opportunity to retest the sample was violative of principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice.  No specific provision has been brought to our notice which<br \/>\npermits retesting of samples, but, for the present case, without going into<br \/>\nthat aspect, we would assume that there was no bar in granting opportunity<br \/>\nto retest the samples.\tAt the same time, however, it has to be borne in mind<br \/>\nthat the purpose of retesting the samples was to demolish the report of the<br \/>\nChemical Examiner on consideration whereof the charge of mis-statement<br \/>\nand suppression regarding quality and grade of the input had been<br \/>\nestablished against the respondent.  In this regard, the Tribunal failed to<br \/>\nnotice the main aspect of the case that option was granted to the respondent<br \/>\nto cross-examine the Chemical Examiner who after taking the samples had<br \/>\ngiven the report.  The respondent had, thus, ample opportunity to demolish<br \/>\nhis report.  The respondent did not avail that opportunity.  It stands<br \/>\nestablished that the adjudicating officer had given an offer to the respondent<br \/>\nto cross-examine the Chemical Examiner.\t The respondent did not dispute<br \/>\nthat such an offer was made.  The only objection of the respondent was that<br \/>\nsuch an offer was made suo moto and the respondent had not asked for it.<br \/>\nThe objection was frivolous and misconceived.  Therefore, we fail to<br \/>\nunderstand, how the respondent having failed to avail the opportunity to<br \/>\ncross-examine the Chemical Examiner could urge that there was violation of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice by non-grant of request of the respondent for<br \/>\nretesting of the samples.  Unfortunately, in the order of the Tribunal there is<br \/>\nnot even a whisper about the offer given to the respondent to cross-examine<br \/>\nthe Chemical Examiner.\tThus, the first reason given by the Tribunal for<br \/>\ncoming to the conclusion that there has been violation of the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe second reason given by the Tribunal is also unsustainable as the<br \/>\nnon-supply of copy of the shipping bills containing the examination report<br \/>\nwas of no consequence as admittedly the report of the test conducted on the<br \/>\nsamples drawn on the respective consignments establishing that the inferior<br \/>\nmaterial has been used had been supplied to the respondent.  Under these<br \/>\ncircumstances the reasoning of the Commissioner of Customs could not be<br \/>\nfaulted.  Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner of Customs was in violation of principles of natural<br \/>\njustice is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tribunal also held that the demand in respect of consignments<br \/>\nwas time barred as the test report was received by the revenue 6 months<br \/>\nbefore issue of show cause notice.  In view of the finding that the charge of<br \/>\nmis-statement and suppressing the correct quality has been established<br \/>\nagainst the respondent, the demand cannot be held to be time barred.\tThe<br \/>\nconclusion of the Tribunal that the extended period of limitation is not<br \/>\navailable to the appellant is clearly erroneous.  The reliance by the Tribunal<br \/>\non the order of Tribunal in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1816129\/\">S.D. Kemexc Industries v. Collector<br \/>\nof Central Excise, Calcutta<\/a> [1995 (75) ELT 377] was also misplaced as in<br \/>\nthat case, the misdeclaration and suppression had not been established and,<br \/>\ntherefore, it was held that the demand was time barred.\t Clearly, therefore,<br \/>\nthe said decision had no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order of the Tribunal and<br \/>\nrestore the order of the Commissioner of Customs.  The appeal is<br \/>\naccordingly allowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t[S.P. Bharucha]<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t[Y.K.Sabharwal]<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t[Brijesh Kumar]<\/p>\n<p>July  31, 2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001 Author: Y.K.Sabharwal Bench: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7602 of 1999 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/s.Punjab Stainless Steel Industries DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal &amp; Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: [&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-158672","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>Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - 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\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-13T07:55:21+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\\\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T07:55:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1459,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\\\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T07:55:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\\\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - 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\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-13T07:55:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001","datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T07:55:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001"},"wordCount":1459,"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\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001","name":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T07:55:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-vs-ms-punjab-stainless-steel-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Customs vs M\/S.Punjab Stainless Steel &#8230; on 31 July, 2001"}]},{"@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\/158672","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=158672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}