{"id":20567,"date":"2001-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001"},"modified":"2019-01-09T06:09:55","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T00:39:55","slug":"commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Venkatarama Reddy<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3942-3944 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA), CHENNAI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. KIRPAL &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN &amp; P. VENKATARAMA REDDY\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2001 Supp(3) SCR 24<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, some goods were imported by the respondent under three<br \/>\nbills of entry. The claim of the respondent was that what was imported were<br \/>\nessentially accessories and under an exemption notification no customs duty<br \/>\nwas payable in respect thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>The record shows that a letter dated 12th September, 1992 was written by<br \/>\nthe appellant with regard to the said import. It was stated in this letter<br \/>\nthat some discussions had taken place between the representatives of the<br \/>\nappellant and the respondent and as the goods imported were urgently<br \/>\nrequired so to meet Export Shipment Deadline respondent was paying duty<br \/>\nunder protest at the rate proposed by the appellant herein. The request was<br \/>\nmade to release the consignment for assessment, payment of duty and early<br \/>\nclearance.\n<\/p>\n<p>After the goods were cleared, an application for refund of the duty paid<br \/>\nwas filed. There is a dispute between the parties as to when was the<br \/>\napplication filed. According to the respondent, the application was filed<br \/>\non 5th March, 1993, whereas according to the appellant the application was<br \/>\nreceived in the Refund Section only on 7th April, 1993. The application<br \/>\nbore more than one stamp and there was a dispute with regard to the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of the said application.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Assistant Collector allowed the refund of about Rs. 2.50 crores after<br \/>\nexamining the goods in question and holding that they were accessories.<br \/>\nWith regard to another set of goods, details of which are contained in the<br \/>\norder of the Assistant Collector, it was held that the same were spare<br \/>\nparts and no refund in respect thereof was permissible. It seems that a<br \/>\nnotice under Section 28 was issued by the Department on the premise that an<br \/>\nexcess refund had been ordered. We are not concerned with this in the<br \/>\npresent case because the Commissioner passed an order under Section 129D of<br \/>\nthe Customs Act holding that the order of refund was not legal and proper<br \/>\non the basis of the ground contained in the enclosure to the said order<br \/>\nunder Section 129D. He, therefore, directed the Assistant Collector of<br \/>\nCustoms to file an appeal before the Collector of Customs against the order<br \/>\nof refund.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Collector of Customs (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\napplication for refund had not been filed within the prescribed period. It<br \/>\ndid not accept the contention of the respondent herein that the application<br \/>\nhad been filed on 5th March, 1993. As it came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\napplication for refund was barred by time and therefore the refund should<br \/>\nnot have been ordered, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give a<br \/>\ncategorical finding on the merits as to whether what was imported and in<br \/>\nrespect of which refund was allowed was spare parts or accessories.\n<\/p>\n<p>Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent filed an<br \/>\nappeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord, came to the conclusion that the application for refund had been<br \/>\nfiled on 5th March, 1993 and the same was within the period of limitation.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal, however, while allowing the appeal of the respondent, did not<br \/>\ngo into the other aspect as to whether the refund was properly allowed on<br \/>\nmerits, namely, whether what was imported were accessories or spare parts.<br \/>\nIt can be noticed that the exemption notification only permitted<br \/>\naccessories from being exempt from tax and not spares. In our opinion, the<br \/>\nfinding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the application for refund<br \/>\nof duty was within the period of limitation calls for no interference. We<br \/>\nare, however, informed that there is a criminal prosecution which has been<br \/>\nlaunched alleging that the letter dated 5th March, 1993 was a forgery. That<br \/>\nprosecution will take its own course and we have nothing to say in respect<br \/>\nthereto. We will, however, not go into a disputed question of fact namely,<br \/>\nwhether the application for refund was filed on 5th March, 1993 or not and<br \/>\nwe do not propose to disturb the finding of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Proceeding on the premise that the application for refund was filed within<br \/>\ntime, the authorities had to consider whether the refund had been properly<br \/>\nordered. In our opinion, the order of the Commissioner of Customs under<br \/>\nSection 129D did not suffer from any infirmity. The said Section enables an<br \/>\norder being passed, if the Commissioner is not satisfied as to the legality<br \/>\nor propriety of the order of the Assistant Collector. In the instant case,<br \/>\nwe find the the Assistant Collector did consider in detail the items which<br \/>\nhe regarded as spares valued at approximately Rs. 18,74,620 and in respect<br \/>\nof which refund was denied. After dealing with this item, in respect of<br \/>\nother items for which refund of about Rs. 2.50 crores was ordered, the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The functions of other items were verified and they were found to be<br \/>\ninstalled in the relevant equipments. I agree that they are forming part of<br \/>\nthe relevant equipments itself which can be classified as Capital Goods.<br \/>\nThe Chartered Engineer has also confirmed that these items are accessories.<br \/>\nI accept the same and extend the concession under the EPCG Scheme for these<br \/>\nitems.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We are of the opinion that the aforesaid cryptic order of the Assistant<br \/>\nCollector would not be regarded legal. Just as the Assistant Collector had<br \/>\nconsidered each item and came to the conclusion that they were spares, it<br \/>\nwas incumbent upon him to give details of the other items before coming to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that they were accessories and not spares. It is to be borne<br \/>\nin mind that the duty was paid by the respondent on the basis of the claim<br \/>\nof the appellant, namely, that what was imported were spares and not<br \/>\naccessories. The refund could be ordered only if there was a positive<br \/>\nfinding based on tangible material to the effect that what was imported<br \/>\nwere accessories and not spares. It was necessary, therefore, for the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector to have examined and given details thereof in the order<br \/>\nwhich was passed. This not having been done, apart from anything else, the<br \/>\nCommissioner was justified in passing an order under Section 129D and<br \/>\ndirecting the filing of an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal<br \/>\nwith the question as to whether what was imported and in respect of which<br \/>\nthe refund was allowed were spares or accessories. This question was also<br \/>\nnot gone into by the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide it<br \/>\nbecause it was of the opinion that the application for refund itself was<br \/>\nbarred by time, inasmuch as the application for refund is not to be<br \/>\nregarded as having been filed within time. It is incumbent upon the<br \/>\nCommissioner to give a finding with regard to the goods imported as to<br \/>\nwhether they were spares as claimed by the Department or accessories as<br \/>\nclaimed by the respondent. The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the<br \/>\nTribunal are, therefore, liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before parting with the case, we may advert to one more aspect arising out<br \/>\nof the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressed the view that<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Collector of Customs under Section 129D(2) is<br \/>\nbeyond the scope of his powers for the reason that the Collector cannot go<br \/>\ninto fresh facts or fresh evidence and he has to confine himself to the<br \/>\nfacts already on record. According to the Tribunal, it was not open to the<br \/>\nCollector to raise the question as to the correctness or genuineness of the<br \/>\nseal on the refund application as it involves a detailed enquiry. Such a<br \/>\npower, according to the Tribunal, could only be exercised under Section 28.<br \/>\nAssuming that the Tribunal&#8217;s understanding of the scope and ambit of<br \/>\nSection 129D (2) is correct, it is not possible in the instant case to hold<br \/>\nthat the Collector of Customs travelled beyond the record and culled out<br \/>\nfresh facts or fresh evidence in support of his conclusion. The Collector,<br \/>\nin our view, restricted himself to the examination of the facts apparent<br \/>\nfrom the record and drew the inferences and conclusions of his own on an<br \/>\nappreciation of the material on record and in the light of the extant<br \/>\nprocedures. He did not launch upon an investigation of the facts which can<br \/>\nbe said to be extraneous to the record placed before him. The basic<br \/>\nassumption underlying the view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore,<br \/>\nincorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal as<br \/>\nwell as the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the case to the Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) for a decision on the question as to whether the refund of Rs.<br \/>\n2.50 crores was correct or any part thereof was correctly allowed on<br \/>\nmerits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001 Bench: B.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Venkatarama Reddy CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3942-3944 of 2001 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA), CHENNAI RESPONDENT: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2001 BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN &amp; P. VENKATARAMA [&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-20567","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 (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-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 (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-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=\"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-09T00:39:55+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=\"8 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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T00:39:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1496,\"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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T00:39:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 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 (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-09T00:39:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T00:39:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001"},"wordCount":1496,"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-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001","name":"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T00:39:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-customs-sea-vs-ballarpur-industries-ltd-on-11-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Customs (Sea), &#8230; vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 11 September, 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\/20567","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=20567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}