{"id":186227,"date":"2001-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001"},"modified":"2018-06-05T12:59:40","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T07:29:40","slug":"ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P. Bhuracha, N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 6769  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S.  K.R.STEEL UNION LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA (GUJARAT).\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t30\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. Bhuracha, N. Santosh Hegde &amp; Y.K. Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  is  directed\tagainst\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nCustoms,  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (the<br \/>\ntribunal),  West  Regional Bench, Mumbai dated 15th  July,<br \/>\n1999 made in Appeal No.C\/366\/94A.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appellant which is an approved unit situated in the<br \/>\nKandla\tFree Trade Zone (KFTZ) was authorised to manufacture<br \/>\none  lakh ton of Cold Rolled Closed Annealed (CRCA) and\t Tin<br \/>\nMill  Black  Plate  (TMBP) Coils per year  under  a  licence<br \/>\nissued\tby the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India  on<br \/>\n30.3.1981.   The  said Ministry by a letter  dated  2.7.1982<br \/>\napproved  the proposal of the appellant for import into\t the<br \/>\nKFTZ  of  second-hand  machinery  for  the  purpose  of\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture  of\t the CRCA and TMBP under certain  conditions<br \/>\nwhich  included that the imported machineries should not  be<br \/>\nover  10 years old and it should have a residual life of  at<br \/>\nleast  5 years.\t Based on the said permission, the appellant<br \/>\nimported  between  the\tperiod\t1983 and  1987\tsecond\thand<br \/>\nmachineries  as\t capital goods for which they had  filed  as<br \/>\nmany  as  17  Bills  of Entry and  claimed  the\t benefit  of<br \/>\nNotification No.  77\/90-Cus.  dated 17.4.1980.\tOn 7.2.1992,<br \/>\nthe  Customs  Authorities issued a show-cause notice to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  alleging  among other grounds that the  appellant<br \/>\nhad  imported  contrary\t to  the  import  licence,  one\t new<br \/>\nThyristor  Converter over and above the Motor Generator Set,<br \/>\na  part\t of the Temper Mill and certain quantity of  ceramic<br \/>\nwool  as  a new component for the purpose of fabrication  of<br \/>\nthe Bright Annealing Furnace.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe proceedings before the Collector of Customs, the<br \/>\nappellant  contended  that  the\t import was  made  with\t the<br \/>\npermission  of\tthe authorities of KFTZ issued to them\tvide<br \/>\npermission    letter\t No.FTZ\/Adm\/2\/822\/90-IV\/4750   dated<br \/>\n25\/30.4.1991.\tThey also contended that the import made  by<br \/>\nthem was governed by the import export policy applicable for<br \/>\nthe  year  1983-84  and the Thyristor Converter\t system\t was<br \/>\nimported  as a part of the complete Temper Mill which was in<br \/>\na  second-hand\tcondition.   The  said\tThyristor  Converter<br \/>\nthough\twas  a\tnew  part  of  the  Temper  Mill,  the\tsame<br \/>\nconstituted  in\t value\tequivalent to only 9% of  the  total<br \/>\nvalue  of the Temper Mill and this particular machinery part<br \/>\nwas  imported as an alternative to Motor Generator Set which<br \/>\nwas  supplied  in a non working condition by  the  supplier.<br \/>\nSimilarly,  it\twas  contended that so far as  ceramic\twool<br \/>\nwhich was also a new component of the annealing furnace, the<br \/>\nsame had to be new since the said ceramic wool had a limited<br \/>\nlife span, hence when a second-hand annealing furnace was to<br \/>\nbe installed, it was imperative that the ceramic wool in the<br \/>\nsame  had  to  be  replaced with new wool  because  the\t old<br \/>\nceramic wool had outlived its utility.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t  Collector  as\t per   his  order  dated   31.3.1993<br \/>\nsubstantially dropped the charges levelled in the show cause<br \/>\nnotice\tand  came  to the conclusion  that  the\t machineries<br \/>\nimported  viewed  as a whole was substantially old and\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Thyristor Converter was an essential part of the Temper<br \/>\nMill,  and  except  for\t this\tparticular  part  all  other<br \/>\ncomponents of the Temper Mill were second-hand.\t He was also<br \/>\nof the opinion that the ceramic wool which was a part of the<br \/>\nannealing  furnace  was\t a  periodically  replaceable  part,<br \/>\nhence,\tsame  cannot  be  individually\t treated  as  a\t new<br \/>\nmachinery,  therefore, was of the opinion that the import in<br \/>\nquestion  was  covered by Notification 77\/80-Cus.  and\tthat<br \/>\nthe  entire  imported machinery after  fabrication  remained<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  KFTZ  and was used for the\t purpose  of  export<br \/>\nproduction,  accordingly he did not consider it necessary to<br \/>\neither\timpose\tthe  penalty and duty as  reflected  in\t the<br \/>\nshow-cause  notice  nor\t did  he   think  it  necessary\t  to<br \/>\nconfiscate the goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\tnoticed above, the Department being aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsaid  order  of\t the Collector filed an\t appeal\t before\t the<br \/>\ntribunal,  who\tby  its\t order dated  6.8.1989\tallowed\t the<br \/>\nDepartments  appeal holding that the import in question was<br \/>\nin  contravention of the import export policy as well as the<br \/>\nNotification issued thereunder and was also made without the<br \/>\napproval  of the KFTZ Board.  Consequently, it remanded\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tto  the\t Commissioner  for the\tlimited\t purpose  of<br \/>\nadjudicating  the liability of the respondent to pay penalty<br \/>\nfor the irregularity committed in the import.  It is against<br \/>\nthis order of the tribunal the above appeal is preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t only question that arises for our consideration  in<br \/>\nthis appeal is whether the import of Thyristor Converter and<br \/>\nthe  ceramic  wool by the appellant as parts of\t the  Temper<br \/>\nMill and Bright Annealing Furnace is in contravention of the<br \/>\nimport permit issued to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthis regard, it is to be seen that under the  import<br \/>\nlicence\t issued to the appellant, it was permitted to import<br \/>\ninto   India   second-hand  machinery\tof   the   following<br \/>\ndescriptions :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) Temper Mills;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) Reversing Cold Reduction Mill;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) Continuous Pickle line;\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) Bright Annealing Furnace Facility; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(e) Reconditioned secondhand cylindrical roll grinding mines.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  permission  does not indicate that each and  every<br \/>\npart  of  the above machinery should necessarily  be  second<br \/>\nhand.  It is seen from the order of the Collector that after<br \/>\nexamining  the\tmachinery  in  question,   he  came  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the  import  of  Thyristor  Converter\t and<br \/>\nceramic\t wool  was as a small part of the  larger  machinery<br \/>\npermitted  to be imported for the manufacture of 1 lakh tons<br \/>\nof CRCA and TMBP Coils per annum which production was purely<br \/>\nfor  the purpose of export.  These two imported items in the<br \/>\nopinion\t of the Collector were integral parts of the  larger<br \/>\nmachinery  permitted  to be imported.  In his opinion  these<br \/>\nparts  could  be  imported because they are  being  used  in<br \/>\nconnection   with  the\tproduction  of\tgoods  for   export.<br \/>\nTherefore,  he\theld  that  the materials  imported  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  were covered as components for assembling certain<br \/>\ncapital goods which will be used for production of goods for<br \/>\nexport.\t  He  also  noticed the fact that since\t the  Temper<br \/>\nMill,\tfurnaces  and  other   equipments   imported   after<br \/>\nfabrication  has to remain in the KFTZ and will be exporting<br \/>\nall  its  production,  keeping\tin mind the  object  of\t the<br \/>\nNotification,  he  did not think it was necessary to  invoke<br \/>\nthe  provisions of Section 111(d) and 112(a) of the  Customs<br \/>\nAct  on\t the  facts  of this case.   But  the  tribunal\t has<br \/>\ndiffered  from this view taken by the Collector holding that<br \/>\nthe  Notification  in question did not permit the import  of<br \/>\nany  new part or replacement material and further held\tthat<br \/>\nthe   Notification   in\t  question    being   an   exemption<br \/>\nNotification,  the same will have to be construed  strictly,<br \/>\nhence,\tthe  extended  meaning\tsought to be  given  by\t the<br \/>\nCollector  to the words:  for being used in connection with<br \/>\nproduction was rather fanciful.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tour opinion, a Notification like the one which falls<br \/>\nfor  our  consideration\t (77\/80-Cus.) cannot be\t read  in  a<br \/>\nnarrow manner so as to defeat the object of the Notification<br \/>\nbecause the notification in question permits the importation<br \/>\nof  certain  second-hand  machinery  to\t  be  used  in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of goods meant only for export in units situated<br \/>\nin  the\t defined  Zones.   The object and  purpose  of\tsuch<br \/>\nexemption  notification is to encourage exports by  granting<br \/>\nexemption  from customs duty on materials that are  required<br \/>\nto  be imported for the purpose of manufacture of  resultant<br \/>\nproducts which are to be exclusively exported.\tThe words of<br \/>\nthe  notification  have to be construed keeping in view\t the<br \/>\nsaid  object and purpose of the exemption.  This is also the<br \/>\nview  taken  by this Court in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/351500\/\">Oblum  Electrical<br \/>\nIndustries  Pvt.Ltd.,  Hyderabad vs.  Collector of  Customs,<br \/>\nBombay<\/a>\t(1997  (7) SCC 581).  This Court in that case  while<br \/>\nconstruing  the\t words:\t materials required to be  imported<br \/>\nfor  the  purpose  of  manufacture  of\tproducts  found\t in<br \/>\nNotification   116-88-Cus.   similar  to  the\tNotification<br \/>\ninvolved in this case held:\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t wordings in the notification have to be  construed<br \/>\nkeeping\t in  view  the\tsaid   object  and  purpose  of\t the<br \/>\nexemption.   In\t the notification two different\t expressions<br \/>\nhave  been used, namely, materials required to be  imported<br \/>\nfor   the   purpose   of   manufacture\tof   products\tand<br \/>\nreplenishment  of  materials  used in  the  manufacture\t of<br \/>\nresultant products which indicates that the two expressions<br \/>\nhave not been used in the same sense.  The former expression<br \/>\ncannot be construed as referring only to materials which are<br \/>\nused in the manufacture of the products.  The said exemption<br \/>\nmust  be given its natural meaning to include materials that<br \/>\nare required in order to manufacture the resultant products.<br \/>\nOn  that view, the exemption cannot be confined to materials<br \/>\nwhich  are actually used in the manufacture of the resultant<br \/>\nproduct\t but  would also include materials which though\t not<br \/>\nused  in  the  manufacture  of\tthe  resultant\tproduct\t are<br \/>\nrequired in order to manufacture the resultant product.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\trespectfully agree with the view taken by this Court<br \/>\nin  the\t above cited case and in that view of the matter  we<br \/>\nare  of the opinion that the tribunal erred in reversing the<br \/>\nfinding\t of the Collector by adopting a very narrow approach<br \/>\nwhile  construing  the words for being used  in\t connection<br \/>\nwith the production of goods for export.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Coming  to the factual matrix of the case, we see  while<br \/>\nthe  Collector came to the conclusion on facts that both the<br \/>\nThyristor  Converter  and the ceramic wool were\t only  small<br \/>\nparts  of the larger machinery permitted to be imported, the<br \/>\ntribunal  proceeded  on a technical ground that since  these<br \/>\nparts  were new it required special permission of the  Board<br \/>\nwithout\t examining  whether the object of the  import  could<br \/>\nhave been achieved by either not importing the said parts or<br \/>\nby  importing old Thyristor converter or used ceramic  wool.<br \/>\nAs  a  matter  of  fact, if the tribunal  had  come  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  either  the  Thyristor  converter  or\t the<br \/>\nceramic wool were not necessary parts of the Temper Mill and<br \/>\nthe  furnace,  or that these parts were being  imported\t for<br \/>\npurposes  other than for the use in the Temper Mill and\t the<br \/>\nfurnace\t then the view taken by the tribunal could have been<br \/>\njustified.  But once it came to the conclusion that both the<br \/>\nTemper\tMill  and  the annealing furnace is  imported  in  a<br \/>\nsecond hand condition and these parts were necessary for the<br \/>\nworking\t of that machinery, it ought not to have  interfered<br \/>\nwith  the  order of the Collector because these\t parts\teven<br \/>\nthough\tnew  were  only a small constituent  of\t the  larger<br \/>\nmachinery.   In\t the instant case, the\tThyristor  Converter<br \/>\nconstituted  only  9% of the total value of the Temper\tMill<br \/>\nwhile ceramic wool which has a life span of only 5 years had<br \/>\nto  be\treplaced because the furnace without the same  would<br \/>\nnot  have  performed  to its optimum capacity with  the\t old<br \/>\nceramic\t wool.\tIn our opinion, unless it can be established<br \/>\nthat  in  the guise of importing a second hand machinery  in<br \/>\nfact   the  importer  has   imported  substantially  a\t new<br \/>\nmachinery, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe  import  was  in  contravention of\tthe  import  licence<br \/>\nkeeping\t in mind the object of the import licence granted to<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\talso notice while coming to the conclusion that\t the<br \/>\nThyristor  Converter is an absolute necessity the  Collector<br \/>\nrelied\ton  the Inspection Report of M\/s.  Dona\t Electricals<br \/>\nPvt.Ltd.  The said Inspection Report given after examination<br \/>\nof  the\t concerned machinery and its drawings had  stated  :<br \/>\nin  the\t absence  of complete M.G.   system,  a\t substitute<br \/>\nThyristor   control   system  is    only   alternative\t and<br \/>\nimperative.   This  observation\t in the\t Inspection  Report<br \/>\nrelied\tupon by the Collector clearly shows that the  Temper<br \/>\nMill would be incomplete and be of no use without the import<br \/>\nof  Thyristor control system.  Therefore, the finding of the<br \/>\ntribunal  that the report of M\/s.  Dona Electricals does not<br \/>\nsupport\t the  view  taken by the Collector  also  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In regard to the import of the ceramic wool, it is to be<br \/>\nnoted  that  the Collector came to the conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nsaid  ceramic  wool is a component which is fitted into\t the<br \/>\nfurnace as a periodically replaceable part and in the normal<br \/>\ncourse\thas a life span was only five years.  Therefore,  in<br \/>\nhis  opinion, while importing second-hand annealing  furnace<br \/>\nif  the\t importer has replaced the periodically\t replaceable<br \/>\nceramic\t wool  with a new one which also has a limited\tlife<br \/>\nspan,  same cannot be construed as importing a new machinery<br \/>\nbecause\t in  the opinion of the Collector there\t is  nothing<br \/>\nimproper  in  importing second-hand machinery  with  certain<br \/>\nparts which require periodical replacement with new parts so<br \/>\nlong  as  the  nature  of the basic  machinery\tso  imported<br \/>\nremains\t to be a second-hand machinery.\t The tribunal though<br \/>\nagreed\twith  the finding of the Collector that the  ceramic<br \/>\nwool  is  a periodically replaceable part still\t held  prior<br \/>\npermission  of\tthe Board was necessary for  such  machinery<br \/>\nwhich  we find difficult to sustain in the view taken by  us<br \/>\nherein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For\t the reasons stated above, we are in agreement\twith<br \/>\nthe  view expressed by the Collector, hence, we reverse\t the<br \/>\nfinding\t of  the  tribunal to the extent  it  is  challenged<br \/>\nbefore\tus.   We  make it clear that the appellant  has\t not<br \/>\nquestioned  the\t finding  of the tribunal in regard  to\t the<br \/>\nimport\tof special steel plates weighting about 11 M.T.\t  To<br \/>\nthis  extent, the order of the tribunal remains\t undisturbed<br \/>\nand  as\t directed  by the tribunal the\tmatter\tshall  stand<br \/>\nremanded  to the Commissioner for considering the  liability<br \/>\nof  the appellant to pay penalty for the unauthorised import<br \/>\nof the said special steel plates.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appeal\t is allowed to the extent  aforestated.\t  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>    J.\t(S.P.Bharucha)<\/p>\n<p>    J.\t(N.Santosh Hegde)<\/p>\n<p>    J.\t(Y.K.Sabharwal)<\/p>\n<p>    March 30, 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 2001 Author: S Hegde Bench: S.P. Bhuracha, N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6769 of 1999 PETITIONER: M\/S. K.R.STEEL UNION LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA (GUJARAT). DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/03\/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bhuracha, [&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-186227","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>M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 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\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-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=\"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-05T07:29:40+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=\"12 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-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T07:29:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2309,\"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-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T07:29:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 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":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 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\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-05T07:29:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T07:29:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001"},"wordCount":2309,"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-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001","name":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla ... on 30 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T07:29:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-k-r-steel-union-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-kandla-on-30-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. K.R.Steel Union Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla &#8230; on 30 March, 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\/186227","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=186227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}