{"id":211485,"date":"2002-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002"},"modified":"2016-06-17T09:57:55","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T04:27:55","slug":"kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 107, 97 (2002) DLT 826, 2002 (62) DRJ 697, 2002 (81) ECC 678, 2002 (143) ELT 60 Del<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Dalveer Bhandari, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. The petitioner is approaching this Court not<br \/>\nbecause it is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal<br \/>\ndated 20th August, 1999 but because the Tribunal could<br \/>\nnot give the desired relief to the petitioner despite<br \/>\nits clear findings in its favor.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner imported one set of design<br \/>\nworkstation with flat bed scanner, floppy disc, etc.<br \/>\nfrom M\/s. Viable System Inc., USA. The breakup price<br \/>\nshown in the invoice was US $ 22,500.00 for hardware<br \/>\nand US $ 60,000.00 for software, which worked out at<br \/>\nRs. 7,16,974.00 for hardware and Rs. 19,11,930.00 for<br \/>\nsoftware. The officers of the Customs Department<br \/>\nraided the premises of the importer. One of the<br \/>\ndocuments seized was a proforma invoice dated 27.12.94.<br \/>\nIt showed a total price of US # 82,500.00 and discount<br \/>\nof US $ 39,325.00. The breakup value of hardware and<br \/>\nsoftware was not separately given. The Commissioner of<br \/>\nCustoms by his order dated 31.5.1995 rejected the<br \/>\ndiscount of US $ 39,325.00 and enhanced the value of<br \/>\nthe imported goods to US $ 1,21,825.00. It is not<br \/>\ndisputed that these goods imported by the petitioner<br \/>\nwere evaluated by the Customs of the value of<br \/>\nRs. 34,65,000.00. These goods were confiscated by the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The order passed by the Commissioner was<br \/>\nchallenged before the Tribunal in appeal. Admittedly,<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the appeal without obtaining the<br \/>\npermission of the appellate court the respondents<br \/>\nauctioned the goods of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The petitioner was not given any notice of<br \/>\nauction of his goods. The auction notice reads as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;GRAND AUCTION SALE <\/p>\n<p> In terms of directions of Govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>of India the AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,<br \/>\nDelhi shall be auctioning accumulated<br \/>\nunclaimed\/uncleared imported Air Cargo<br \/>\nlanded on or before 31st March, 1997. The<br \/>\nhuge accumulated stock consists of<br \/>\nElectronics, Computer Parts, T.V. Parts,<br \/>\nPhotocopier Parts, Peretonial Dialisis<br \/>\nEquipment and other Medical\/Dental items,<br \/>\nChemical, Printed matter, Ready made<br \/>\nGarments, Spare Parts, Machinery, Leather<br \/>\nitems and many other attractive items.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted<br \/>\nthat the respondents could not have auctioned the<br \/>\nconfiscated goods. According to the rules and<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act such auction is clearly violative<br \/>\nof the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The learned counsel has submitted that Section<br \/>\n150 of the Customs Act has no application to this case<br \/>\nbecause that Section relates to goods which are not<br \/>\nconfiscated. According to the learned counsel this<br \/>\ncase is squarely covered by Section 126 of the Customs<br \/>\nAct. Section 126 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;126. On confiscation, property to vest<br \/>\nin Central Government. -(1) When any goods<br \/>\nare confiscated under this Act, such<br \/>\ngoods shall thereupon vest in the Central<br \/>\nGovernment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> Therefore, according to the submission of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner after confiscation,<br \/>\nthe goods became the property of the Central<br \/>\nGovernment. During the pendency of the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal, without any permission of the court, the<br \/>\nconfiscated goods were auctioned in a clandestine<br \/>\nmanner by the respondents. The respondents are<br \/>\nobviously under an obligation to compensate the<br \/>\npetitioner for the grave loss which has been caused to<br \/>\nhim. The goods were evaluated by the petitioner at<br \/>\nRs. 19,11,930.00 and Rs. 7,16,974.00. The total amount<br \/>\nworked out to be Rs. 26,28,904.00. This is the<br \/>\ndeclaration of the petitioner though the respondents<br \/>\nhave evaluated the value of confiscated goods at<br \/>\nRs. 33.01 lakhs. While granting the order we deem it<br \/>\nproper to take the value of goods declared by the<br \/>\npetitioner otherwise it would be a case of unjust<br \/>\nenrichment. The petitioner has placed reliance on<br \/>\n  <a href=\"\/doc\/1961058\/\">Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and<br \/>\nCentral Excise,   and   Shilps Impex<\/a><br \/>\nv. Union of India ,  . In Shilps&#8217;<br \/>\ncase (supra) their Lordships of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt observed that the petitioner became entitled to<br \/>\nget back what he has paid. In   Northern Plastics&#8217; case<br \/>\n(supra) the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;It was contended by Mr. Dave that<br \/>\nthe applicants are not liable to pay any<br \/>\nduty as the goods were not cleared by the<br \/>\nrespondent and they were subsequently<br \/>\nconfiscated and sold by the respondent<br \/>\nand, therefore, the applicants cannot be<br \/>\nsaid to have imported the goods. On the<br \/>\nother hand, it was contended by Mr. C.S.<br \/>\nVaidyanathan, learned Additional Solicitor<br \/>\nGeneral that the import of the goods was<br \/>\nby the applicants and as soon as the said<br \/>\ngoods landed on the land mass of India<br \/>\nproper amount of duty, became payable<br \/>\nthereon. In our opinion, Mr. Vaidyanathan,<br \/>\nis right in his submission particularly,<br \/>\nwhen full impact has to be given to the<br \/>\norder passed by us declaring retention and<br \/>\nconfiscation of the goods to be illegal.<br \/>\nMr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Additional<br \/>\nSolicitor General, however, further<br \/>\nsubmitted that value of the goods as shown<br \/>\nin the import documents was only Rs. 33.04<br \/>\nlacs and as the duty and the Warehousing<br \/>\ncharges payable are more than the said<br \/>\namount, the applicant is not entitled to<br \/>\nrecover anything from the respondent.<br \/>\nWhat is over-looked by the learned Counsel<br \/>\nis the consequence of setting aside the<br \/>\norder of confiscation on the ground that<br \/>\nit was illegal. The applicant has become<br \/>\nentitled to the value of the goods as on<br \/>\nthe date or time when the goods ought to<br \/>\nhave been cleared by the respondent for<br \/>\nhome consumption. If the value of the<br \/>\ngoods in India after importation and<br \/>\npayment of duty, in January, 1989, was<br \/>\nRs. 33.04 lacs only then the applicant, and<br \/>\nfor that matter any sensible person, would<br \/>\nnot have imported the goods at all. It<br \/>\nwould be reasonable to presume that an<br \/>\nimporter would have imported the goods of<br \/>\nthe value of Rs. 33.04 lacs if its value in<br \/>\nIndian market at the relevant time was<br \/>\nmore than CIS value of the goods plus the<br \/>\nduty payable thereon (Rs. 33.04 lacs +<br \/>\n47.07 lacs = Rs. 80.11 lacs.) It is also<br \/>\nnot the stand of the respondent that such<br \/>\ngoods were available in the Indian market<br \/>\nat that time at a lesser price. Therefore<br \/>\nit is now the obligation of the respondent<br \/>\nto return at least of Rs. 80.11 lacs &#8211; 47.07<br \/>\nlacs, the amount of duty payable thereon.<br \/>\nAs the applicant has been deprived of the<br \/>\nuse of the goods worth Rs. 33.04 lacs the<br \/>\nrespondent is under a legal obligation now<br \/>\nto refund that amount to the applicant.<br \/>\nThe respondent cannot now be permitted to<br \/>\ntake the advantage of his own wrong and<br \/>\ncontend that the value of the goods should<br \/>\nbe determined only at Rs. 48.50 lacs<br \/>\ninclusive of its value and the amount of<br \/>\nduty payable thereon because they could be<br \/>\nsold at that price only. We also cannot<br \/>\naccept the contention of the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the respondent that if the<br \/>\napplicant has suffered any loss as a<br \/>\nresult of the wrongful act of the<br \/>\nrespondent then he should file an action<br \/>\nin tort and his Court cannot order<br \/>\npayment of any amount in these<br \/>\napplications. No doubt it would be open<br \/>\nto the applicant to initiate such an<br \/>\naction if it feels that the loss suffered<br \/>\nby it is more than Rs. 33.04 lacks. Merely<br \/>\nbecause it is open to the applicant to<br \/>\ninitiate such an action it would not be<br \/>\njust and proper to refuse the claim made in<br \/>\nthese applications as in any case the<br \/>\napplicants is entitled to return of the<br \/>\nmoney value of the goods which were<br \/>\nillegally confiscated by the respondent.<br \/>\nEven though the applicant has claimed<br \/>\ninterest @ 21% we do not think it proper<br \/>\nto award interest at such a high rate and<br \/>\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case it would be in the interest of<br \/>\njustice if the respondent is directed to<br \/>\nreturn the amount of Rs. 33.04 lacs with<br \/>\ninterest at the rate of 12% from 1.2.1989<br \/>\ntill the date of payment as the Collector<br \/>\nby its order dated 31.1.1989 had held that<br \/>\nthe goods were properly described and the<br \/>\nimport was illegal.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. We are of the considered opinion that during the<br \/>\npendency of the appeal confiscated goods could not have<br \/>\nbeen auctioned without the prior permission of the<br \/>\nappellate court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. From various judicial orders we gather that this<br \/>\nlapse is being repeated in a large number of cases,<br \/>\ntherefore, we are constrained to observe that the<br \/>\nrespondents have not been diligent in discharging their<br \/>\nduties. The respondents are directed to issue an<br \/>\nofficial circular within four weeks to all the<br \/>\nconcerned officials that the confiscated goods which<br \/>\nare the subject matter of appeal before any Tribunal or<br \/>\ncourt shall not be auctioned or disposed of without<br \/>\nprior written permission or order from the concerned<br \/>\nTribunal or the court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. After obtaining necessary permission if the<br \/>\nauthorities decide to auction the goods, then<br \/>\nindividual notice to the concerned parties is<br \/>\nimperative. We are clearly of the opinion that the<br \/>\nrespondents have committed a serious blunder by<br \/>\nauctioning the goods which were subject matter of<br \/>\nappeal without prior permission of the concerned<br \/>\nappellate court. The petitioner has to be compensated<br \/>\nfor this serious lapse of the respondents causing<br \/>\nimmense financial loss to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. We accordingly direct the respondents to refund<br \/>\nthe amount of Rs. 26,28,940.00 declared as the value of<br \/>\nthe confiscated goods to the petitioner forthwith. The<br \/>\nrespondents are directed to return the said amount with<br \/>\ninterest at the rate of nine percent per annum from<br \/>\nthe date of unauthorised auction of the confiscated<br \/>\ngoods, i.e., 21.5.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Mr. Mohd, Haneef, the Superintendent of Customs,<br \/>\n(Disposal), AIR Cargo Unit, New Delhi gives undertaking<br \/>\nto this court that the amount will be paid within six<br \/>\nweeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. No further directions are necessary in this<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 107, 97 (2002) DLT 826, 2002 (62) DRJ 697, 2002 (81) ECC 678, 2002 (143) ELT 60 Del Author: D Bhandari Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-17T04:27:55+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\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T04:27:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1612,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T04:27:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - 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\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-17T04:27:55+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\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T04:27:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002"},"wordCount":1612,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002","name":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central ... on 13 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T04:27:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-ribbon-factory-ltd-vs-the-commr-of-customs-central-on-13-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs The Commr. Of Customs &amp; Central &#8230; on 13 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/211485","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=211485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}