{"id":202821,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-06T18:41:51","modified_gmt":"2015-09-06T13:11:51","slug":"b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\nDATED: 28\/01\/2011\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.3135 of 2010\n\nB.C.Hariharan\t \t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Joint Commissioner of Customs\n  O\/o. The Commissioner of Customs\n   and Central Excise,\n  No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,\n  Trichy 620 001.\t\n\n2.The Commissioner of Customs and\n   Central Excise,\n  No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,\n  Trichy 620 001.\t\t...Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records\nin and connected with C.No.VIII\/17\/29\/1998-Customs Legal dated 01.12.2009 on the\nfile of the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to\nreturn to the petitioner the entire sale proceeds  of the auctioned  Silver\nIngots with interest at appropriate rates from the date of sale of the impugned\nSilver Ingots.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan,S.C.\n\t\t    For Mr.B.Satish Sundar\n^For Respondents... Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan\n\t\t    For R1 and R2\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge<br \/>\nan order dated 01.12.2009 wherein and by which, the second respondent held that<br \/>\nhis claim for release of sale proceeds cannot be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. In the writ petition on behalf of the respondents, Mr.B.Vijay<br \/>\nKarthikeyan took notice  and had also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents dated 24.03.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nappearing for  Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:<br \/>\n\tOn 14.03.1993, the residential premises of the petitioner was searched by<br \/>\nthe Officers of the Customs Preventive Unit, Salem. From the kitchen of his<br \/>\nhouse, 6 gunny bags containing silver ingots were recovered and seized. It was<br \/>\nrecorded in a Mahazar. The petitioner produced two baggage receipts issued by<br \/>\nCalicut Airport covering those ingots. The officers nevertheless seized the<br \/>\ningots on the ground that the numbers and marking found in the ingots did not<br \/>\ntally with the numbers in the baggage receipts.  A show cause notice was issued<br \/>\nto the petitioner and also to one Kunjutty.  A proposal for confiscation of the<br \/>\nsilver ingots  as well as the penalty  were also made on 24.08.1993. The<br \/>\npetitioner sent a reply dated 15.09.1993. It was claimed by him that the silver<br \/>\ningots were purchased from importers who have duly imported it under the<br \/>\nbaggages on payment of duty.  On 10.11.1993, a further reply was submitted by<br \/>\nthe petitioner through his consultant with evidence of requisite import duty.  A<br \/>\npersonal hearing was held on 05.08.1994. The cross examination of witnesses as<br \/>\nwell as officers were also made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On 19.12.1994, an Order-in-Original (O.I.C) was passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent Commissioner of Customs.  He made an absolute confiscation of the 6<br \/>\nsilver bars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 r\/w Section 3(3) of the<br \/>\nForeign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.  A penalty of Rs.1 lakh<br \/>\nwas levied under Section 112 of the Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold<br \/>\n(Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Madras vide his appeal dated 20.03.1995.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal on 04.07.1995 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of<br \/>\nRs.25,000\/- as a condition precedent in terms of 129(E) of the Customs Act. The<br \/>\npetitioner accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.25,000\/- on 22.08.1995. The<br \/>\nTribunal by its order dated 08.11.1996 confirmed the order of confiscation<br \/>\npassed by the second respondent but reduced the penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The respondent informed the petitioner that on 25.03.1998 the silver<br \/>\nbars under seizure were sent to Chennai Customs House for disposal.  On<br \/>\n20.05.1998, the reference application was also disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.14948 of 1998 before this Court challenging<br \/>\nthe order of the Tribunal. On 25.10.2006, this Court directed the respondents to<br \/>\nextend the option of redemption in respect of the seized silver ingots if<br \/>\navailable with the department.  The petitioner on 02.03.2007 sent a letter to<br \/>\nthe second respondent. Written submissions were also made on 14.09.2009 followed<br \/>\nwith a letter dated 25.09.2009 through his counsel seeking for a personal<br \/>\nhearing.  However the respondent on 01.12.2009 rejected the petitioner&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The contentions raised by the petitioner was that the respondent should<br \/>\nnot have disposed of the silver ingots especially when the matter was subjudice<br \/>\nand the order of absolute confiscation by the adjudicating authority was set<br \/>\naside by this Court in W.P.No.14948 of 1998 and that order had reached its<br \/>\nfinality.  Therefore, there would have been no impediment on the part of the<br \/>\nrespondent to allow redemption of the seized goods made or in the alternative<br \/>\ndisburse the sale proceeds less the statutory charges. The disposal of the<br \/>\nsilver ingots without intimation to the petitioner was untenable and violative<br \/>\nof Section 48 of the Customs Act.  Despite the departmental instructions, even<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the writ petition, it was sold in the year 1998.<br \/>\nTherefore, the respondents should have returned the sale proceeds of the<br \/>\ndisbursed silver ingots which he is legally entitled to.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The sheet anchor of the petitioner&#8217;s case was based on the order<br \/>\npassed by this Court in W.P.No.14948 of 1998 dated 25.10.2006. In that case, in<br \/>\nParagraphs 3 and 6 it was observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments of<br \/>\nvarious Tribunals in the cases of Gundesh Raju v. Commissioner of Customs,<br \/>\nBangalore 1998 (98) ELT 121; Hiralal Bhagat v. Commissioner of Customs, Patna,<br \/>\n2003 (154) ELT 124; and Ram Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs, 2003 (160)<br \/>\nELT 186 to contend that in view of the liberalization policy of the Central<br \/>\nGovernment with regard to importation of gold and silver, the total confiscation<br \/>\nis uncalled for.  The liberalization policy has been adopted from the year 1992-<br \/>\n93 onwards. This is a case on which the petitioner was found in possession of<br \/>\nthe ingots, which were recovered in the year 1993.  Hence, same treatment, which<br \/>\nhas been given to the petitioners in the above referred to cases, has to be<br \/>\ngiven to this petitioner as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Having regard to the above disputed fact and also the judgments relied on  by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the same view<br \/>\nwhich has been taken by the Kolkata Tribunal in Hiralal Bhagat v. Commissioner<br \/>\nof Customs, 2003 (154) ELT 124, can be taken in this case also, in view of the<br \/>\npolicy of the Central Government on liberalization of importation of silver and<br \/>\ngold ingots, but having regard to the submission that the silver ingots<br \/>\nconfiscated from the petitioner are not available, which fact is disputed by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition can<br \/>\nbe disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner for imposition of redemption find in lieu of total confiscation, if<br \/>\nthe silver ingots seized from the petitioner are still available with the<br \/>\nDepartment, in the sense that the order of the authorities has been confirmed,<br \/>\nbut modified to the extent that in respect of total confiscation, the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s case  can be considered.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Opposing the request of the petitioner, in the counter affidavit, it<br \/>\nwas stated that the case of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.  The order<br \/>\npassed by the second respondent was confirmed by the CEGAT, Madras and the<br \/>\nTribunal only reduced the penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000\/-. This Court had<br \/>\nmerely directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner for imposition<br \/>\nof fine in lieu of total confiscation if the silver ingots seized from the<br \/>\npetitioner are still available with the department in the sense that in lieu of<br \/>\ntotal confiscation the department can consider levying redemption fine in<br \/>\naddition to penalty imposed and confirmed. Hence, the order of this Court cannot<br \/>\nbe  considered as a direction to return either the seized ingots or to pay the<br \/>\namount in lieu of the seized goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 the notified goods<br \/>\nseized by the department can be disposed of by the department immediately after<br \/>\nthe seizure and the silver bars are the notified commodity under Section 110(1A)<br \/>\nof the Act. Having regard to the constraint involved in storage of high valued<br \/>\ngoods and considering the liquidity to exchequer, the silver ingots were<br \/>\ndisposed of. The order of this Court for release of the impugned goods on<br \/>\nredemption fine was subject to availability of the goods.  Since the imported<br \/>\ngoods are not available with the Department, the question of exercising the<br \/>\noption as directed by this Court will not arise. Hence the department is not in<br \/>\na position to release the sale proceeds since the CEGOT had upheld the final<br \/>\norder passed by the Department on 8.11.1996 and the Tribunal&#8217;s order was not set<br \/>\naside. It was pointed out that this Court while passing order relied upon the<br \/>\njudgment of Kolkatta Tribunal in the case of Hiralal Bhagat v. Commissioner of<br \/>\nCustoms. There the Tribunal held since the seized goods were not available and<br \/>\ndue to liberalization such goods are not barred from being brought in,<br \/>\npermission was granted to the aggrieved party to redeem the same on payment of<br \/>\nredemption fine and duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Reliance was placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1535525\/\">Hargovind Das K.Joshi v. Collector of Customs<\/a> reported in 1992<br \/>\n(61)E.L.T.172 (S.C.), where it was held that that the option of redemption fine<br \/>\nshould have been given by the authorities.  The respondents have not  done so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon a judgment of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1961058\/\">Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central<br \/>\nExcise<\/a> reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) as well as this Court in the case<br \/>\nof  <a href=\"\/doc\/909179\/\">Collector of Customs, Madras v. Meena A.Bharwani<\/a> reported in 2006 (194)<br \/>\nE.L.T. 273 (Mad.). After referring to those judgments, he contended that in the<br \/>\nabsence of availability of silver ingots, the respondents are duty bound to<br \/>\ndisburse the sale proceeds of the seized silver ingots or the market value of<br \/>\nthe goods.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In Paragraph 7 of the Northern Plastics Ltd&#8217;s case (cited supra), the<br \/>\nSupreme Court observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7. As the order of confiscation of goods was held to be bad the goods were<br \/>\nrequired to be returned to the owner thereof.  As the order of confiscation was<br \/>\ndeclared as illegal by this Court on the ground that there was mis-declaration<br \/>\nof the goods and that the applicant was entitled to import those goods on the<br \/>\nO.G.L., the confiscated goods, if they had not been disposed of, would have been<br \/>\nrequired to be released in favour of the applicant and the applicant could have<br \/>\nclaimed damages for the damage to the goods and loss caused to it as a result of<br \/>\nillegal retention of the goods by the respondent. We have referred to above how<br \/>\nthe applicant was prevented by the respondent and the Hindustan Photo Films from<br \/>\nredeeming\/obtaining those goods.  The goods having been sold away the respondent<br \/>\nis now not in a position to return the goods to the applicant. As this situation<br \/>\nhas been brought about by the respondent  by his own acts he cannot now escape<br \/>\nfrom the liability of returning to the applicant the money value of the said<br \/>\ngoods. If without challenging the first order passed on 31.1.1989 and the<br \/>\ninterim order passed by the Gujarat High Court in favour of the applicant on<br \/>\n27.04.1989 the respondent had returned the goods on the terms and conditions<br \/>\nimposed by the Gujarat High Court then he would not have landed himself in this<br \/>\nsituation.  It should have been realised by the respondent while challenging the<br \/>\nsaid orders and retaining the goods in his possession that the goods were of<br \/>\nperishable nature and that they required air conditioned accommodation. Having<br \/>\nmade all attempts to prevent the release of goods in favour of the applicant the<br \/>\nrespondent cannot now contend that the applicant and not he was really<br \/>\nresponsible for deterioration of the goods and the consequent less realisation<br \/>\nof price.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in that judgment. But in the present case, the petitioner had lost<br \/>\nhis case before the CEGAT, Chennai and even this Court had only made a direction<br \/>\nsubject to the availability of the goods. Therefore, the prayer made by the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.  Hence, the writ petition<br \/>\nstands dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>svki<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Joint Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\n  O\/o. The Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\n   and Central Excise,<br \/>\n  No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,<br \/>\n  Trichy 620 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner of Customs and<br \/>\n   Central Excise,<br \/>\n  No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,<br \/>\n  Trichy 620 001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3135 of 2010 B.C.Hariharan &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The Joint Commissioner of Customs O\/o. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy 620 [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1946,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":1946,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011","name":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-06T13:11:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-c-hariharan-vs-the-joint-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.C.Hariharan vs The Joint Commissioner Of Customs on 28 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/202821","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=202821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}