{"id":218653,"date":"1988-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988"},"modified":"2018-03-29T10:57:46","modified_gmt":"2018-03-29T05:27:46","slug":"collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1351, \t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 641<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1351\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 641\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  418\t  JT 1988 (4)\t726\n 1988 SCALE  (1)907\n\n\nACT:\n     Customs Tariff  Act, 1975:\t Chapters 28 &amp; 29 &amp; Headings\n39.01\/06  and\t38.01\/19(6)-\"Plastz.cizers   not   otherwise\nspecified\"-Interpretation of-\"Sancticizer  429\"-Levy of duty\non-Not separately defined chemical compounds.\n     Statutory Interpretation-Customs  and Excise  Statutes-\nTariff entries-How  goods are  known in\t the trade and trade\nliterature-Relevancy of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  respondents\twho  imported\t'Sancticizer   429',\ncontested the  levy of\tduty by\t the Department\t and filed a\nclaim for  refund,  which  was\trejected  by  the  Assistant\nCollector on  the ground,  that on ted the product was found\nto be  organic compound\t (easter-type) of colourless viscose\nliquid and  as per  7.0.046 should be considered a polymeric\nplasticizer.\n     On\t appeal,   the\tAppellate   Collector  came  to\t the\nconclusion that\t Chapter 38  of the  Customs Tariff Act 1975\nwas residuary in nature and that if the item was not covered\nby any\tother Chapter  of the  Tariff Act only then it would\nfall under  the said  Chapter. He  also\t found\tthat  linear\npolysters were\tcovered by  CCCN 39.01(E) and that the goods\nin question  are formed by the condensation of diabasic acid\nwithin\tdihydric   alcohols  and   were\t  similar   to\t the\npolycondensation products of terphthalic acid or adipic acid\nwith ethanediel\t covered by  the  aforesaid  CCCN  headings,\nwhich corresponds  to 39.01\/06\tof the\tCustoms Tariff\tAct,\n1975. The  Appellate Collector\tupheld the  decision of\t the\nAssistant Collector.\n     The respondent  appealed to the Customs Excise and Gold\nControl Appellate  Tribunal which allowed the appeals taking\nthe view that plasticizers were not resins, but are added to\nresins to impart better flexibility of plastic properties to\nthe  latter,   that  'Sancticizer   429'  is   admittedly  a\nplasticizer  and   would  therefore   not  have\t fallen\t for\nclassification under  Heading No.  39.01\/06 of\tthe  Customs\nTariff Schedule\t as it\tstood before  amendment in  1978 and\nthat the product was classifiable\n642\nunder heading 38.01\/19(6) of the Tariff Act.\n     Dismissing the Appeals of the Revenue, this Court,\n^\n     HELD:  1.\t As  per   various  technical\tauthorities,\nplasticizers are  not resins.  These are  added to resins to\nimpart better  flexibility or  plastic properties  to  them.\nThese are not plastic materials by themselves either. [644H]\n     2. The  goods under  reference in the instant case, are\nnot   similar\tto   resols   or   polysiobutylenes.   Their\nclassification under  Heading 39.01\/06 of the Customs Tariff\nAct, 1975,  prior to  and even\tafter its amendment in 1978,\nshould not  be\tapplicable.  Not  being\t separately  defined\nchemical compounds, these would also not fall within Chapter\n28 or 29 of the Act. Since these are not specified elsewhere\ntheir appropriate  classification would be under Heading No.\n38.01\/19(6)  as\t \"Plasticizers,\t not  elsewhere\t specified\".\n[645C]\n     3. In  these matters  how a  good is known in the trade\nand  treated   in  the\ttrade  literature  is  relevant\t and\nsignificant and often decisive factor. [645D]\n     \"Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology\" 3rd Edition page\n111 referred to.\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1092678\/\">Bhor Industries  Ltd. v.  Collector of Customs, Bombay,<\/a>\n[1984] 18  E.L.T. 521  and <a href=\"\/doc\/274489\/\">Collector  of Customs,  Bombay v.\nBhor Industries\t Ltd. and<\/a>  another,  [1985]  21\t E.L.T.\t 291\napproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 392-95<br \/>\nof 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal under  Section 130E(b) of the Central Excise and<br \/>\nSalt Act,  1944 from  the  order  dated\t 15.12.1986  of\t the<br \/>\nCustoms Excise\tand Gold  (Control)-Appellate Tribunal,\t New<br \/>\nDelhi in Appeal Nos. C\/2130 to 2132\/86-C &amp; 1027\/83 and order<br \/>\nNo. 757-760\/86.\n<\/p>\n<p>     B. Datta,\tASG, Mrs. Indira Sawhney and P. Parmeshwaran<br \/>\nfor the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals under Section<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">643<\/span><br \/>\n130E(b) of the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter called the Act)<br \/>\nare against  the order\tdated 15th  December, 1986 passed by<br \/>\nthe Customs,  Excise and  Gold (Control,  Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\n(hereinafter called  CEGAT). These  appeals are related to a<br \/>\ndispute\t regarding   the  duty\tof  custom  imposed  on\t the<br \/>\nrespondent. The\t department had\t levied duty  on the product<br \/>\nknown as  &#8216;Sancticizer 429&#8217;  imported by the respondent. The<br \/>\nrespondent had contested this duty and filed a claim for the<br \/>\nrefund. The  Assistant Collector  of Customs  rejected\tthis<br \/>\nclaim. The  Assistant Collector\t on  test  found  it  to  be<br \/>\norganic compound  (easter-type) inform of colourless viscose<br \/>\nliquid and as per 7.0.046m should be considered as polymeric<br \/>\nplasticizer. The  Appellate Collector  found that Chapter 38<br \/>\nof the\tCustoms Tariff\tAct, 1975  was residuary  in nature.<br \/>\nAccording to  him, if  the item was not covered by any other<br \/>\nchapter of  the Customs\t Tariff Act, 1975 then it would fall<br \/>\nunder Chapter 38. The Appellate Collector further found that<br \/>\nlinear\tpolysters   were  covered   by\tCCCN  39.01(E).\t The<br \/>\nAppellate Collector  held that the impugned goods are formed<br \/>\nby  the\t  condensation\tof  diabasic  acid  within  dihydric<br \/>\nalcohols and  were similar  to the poly condensation product<br \/>\nof terphthalic\tacid or\t Adipic acid with ethanediel covered<br \/>\nby above  mentioned CCCN  headings. The\t Appellate Collector<br \/>\nheld this  CCCN headings  corresponds  to  39.01\/06  of\t the<br \/>\nCustoms Tariff Act, 1975. The Appellate Collector upheld the<br \/>\ndecision  of   the  Assistant\tCollector.  The\t  respondent<br \/>\nchallenged the\taforesaid order\t of the\t Appellate Collector<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Tribunal.\tThe  Tribunal  allowed\tthe  appeals<br \/>\nrelying on  the two decisions of the Tribunal one being <a href=\"\/doc\/1092678\/\">Bhor<br \/>\nIndustries Ltd.\t v. Collector  of Customs, Bombay,<\/a> [1984] 18<br \/>\nE.L.T. 521  and the  other <a href=\"\/doc\/274489\/\">Collector  of Customs,  Bombay v.<br \/>\nBhor Industries\t Ltd. and<\/a> another, [1985] 21 E.L.T. 291. The<br \/>\nTribunal was  of the  view that the product was classifiable<br \/>\nunder the heading 38.01\/19(6) of the Customs Tariff Act. The<br \/>\ndecision of  the Tribunal  was\tlater  on  followed  by\t the<br \/>\nsubsequent decision referred to hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1092678\/\">In Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay<\/a><br \/>\n(supra), the  Tribunal observed\t that these  are  ordinarily<br \/>\nliquids and,  in rare  instances,  solids,  as\tsimple\thigh<br \/>\nboiling solvents  for the polymers. These are neither resins<br \/>\nnor do they seem to be plastic materials; on the other hand,<br \/>\nthese are  added to  resins to\timpart better flexibility or<br \/>\nplastic properties  to them.  It was  further observed\tthat<br \/>\nthere was  no evidence had been produced before the Tribunal<br \/>\nto show\t that Sancticizer was a resin or plastic material as<br \/>\ndefined in  Explanatory Notes  to C.C.C.N.  It\twas  neither<br \/>\nsimilar to resols or polysiobutylene to attract the mischief<br \/>\nof Note 2(c) to Chapter 39 nor a separately defined Chemical<br \/>\nCompound so as to fall within Chapters 28 or 29 of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">644<\/span><br \/>\nCustoms Tariff\tAct, 1975.  Hence, it  was classifiable\t not<br \/>\nunder Heading  39.01\/06 as  it stood before its amendment in<br \/>\n1978 but  under 38.01\/19(6)  of Customs\t Tariff Act, 1975 as<br \/>\n&#8220;plasticizer, not elsewhere specified&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Tribunal  in its  decision considered the technical<br \/>\nleaflet on  the product.  Sancticizer 429 was described as a<br \/>\nmedium-high molecular  polyester  plasticizer  made  from  a<br \/>\nglycol reacted\twith a\tdibasic acid.  Among the  properties<br \/>\nclaimed\t for   the  product   are   good   low\t temperature<br \/>\nflexibility, excellent\telectrical  properties,\t outstanding<br \/>\nmigration resistance,  humidity, stability and resistance to<br \/>\noil and\t solvant extraction.  It is  said to be an excellent<br \/>\nplasticizer for\t making oil-resistant  high temperature\t PVC<br \/>\nwire and cable compounds. It is also stated to be useful for<br \/>\nplasticizing  ethyl   cellulose,   mitrocellulose,   acrylic<br \/>\ncaulking compunds, and adhesive systems based upon polyvinyl<br \/>\naccetate, styrene-butadiene,  and acrylic latices. Reference<br \/>\nwas also  made to  Kirk-othmer&#8217;s &#8220;Encyclopaedia\t of Chemical<br \/>\nTechnology&#8221; 3rd\t edition page  111, where it was observed as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;A plasticizer  is incorporated  in a\t material to<br \/>\n\t  increase   its    workability,   flexibility,\t  or<br \/>\n\t  distensibility.  Addition  of\t a  plasticizer\t may<br \/>\n\t  lower\t the   melt  viscosity,\t  the\tsecond-order<br \/>\n\t  transition temperature,  or the elastic modulus of<br \/>\n\t  the  plastic.\t For  effectiveness  with  polymeric<br \/>\n\t  materials, a\tplasticizer needs  to  be  initially<br \/>\n\t  mixed with  the polymer  either by  dissolution of<br \/>\n\t  the resin in the plasticizer or the plasticizer in<br \/>\n\t  the resin,  by heat or dissolving both in a common<br \/>\n\t  solvent and subsequent evaporation of the solvent.<br \/>\n\t  In &#8220;Plastics\tmaterials&#8221; (4th\t edition, page\t80),<br \/>\n\t  J.A.\tBrydson\t refers\t to  plasticizers-ordinarily<br \/>\n\t  liquids and  in rare\tinstances  solids-as  simply<br \/>\n\t  high boiling\tsolvents for the polymer. The action<br \/>\n\t  is explained\tby saying that plasticizer molecules<br \/>\n\t  insert  themselves   between\t polymer   molecules<br \/>\n\t  reducing  but\t  not  eliminating   polymer-polymer<br \/>\n\t  contacts and\tgenerating additional  free  volume;<br \/>\n\t  also as  some\t interaction  between  polymers\t and<br \/>\n\t  plasticizers off  setting the\t spacing effect;  or<br \/>\n\t  both.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The Tribunal  came to  the conclusion that plasticizers<br \/>\nwere not  resins; these are added to resins to impart better<br \/>\nflexibility or\tplastic properties  to the  latter. Nor\t did<br \/>\nthey  seem  to\tbe  plastic  materials\tby  themselves.\t The<br \/>\nTribunal found\tthat Sancticizer  429 which  is admitedly  a<br \/>\nplasticizer  would,   therefore,   not\t have\tfallen\t for<br \/>\nclassification<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">645<\/span><br \/>\nunder Heading No. 39.01\/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as<br \/>\nit stood prior to its amendment in 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The said  reasoning was  reiterated by  the Tribunal in<br \/>\nthe  decision  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/274489\/\">Collector  of  Customs,  Bombay  v.\tBhor<br \/>\nIndustries Ltd.\t and<\/a> another.  There, the  Tribunal observed<br \/>\nthat as\t per various technical authorities, plasticizers are<br \/>\nnot resins.  Rather, these  are added  to resins  to  impart<br \/>\nbetter flexibility  or plastic properties to them. These are<br \/>\nnot plastic  materials by  themselves either. Further, goods<br \/>\nunder\treference    are   not\t  similar   to\t resols\t  or<br \/>\npolysiobutylenes.  Therefore,\ttheir  classification  under<br \/>\nHeading 30.01\/106  of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, prior to<br \/>\nand  even  after  its  amendment  in  1978,  should  not  be<br \/>\napplicable.  Furthermore,   not\t being\t separately  defined<br \/>\nchemical compounds, these would also not fall within Chapter<br \/>\n28  or\t29  of\tthe  Act.  Since  these\t are  not  specified<br \/>\nelsewhere, their  appropriate classification  would be under<br \/>\nHeading No.  39.01\/19(6)  as  &#8220;Plasticizers,  not  elsewhere<br \/>\nspecified&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is well-settled in these matters how a good is known<br \/>\nin the trade and treated in the trade literature is relevant<br \/>\nand significant and often decisive factor.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In that  view of  the matter, the Tribunal was right in<br \/>\nthe view  it took.  These appeals  fail and  are accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t   Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">646<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1351, 1988 SCR (3) 641 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1988 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S. [&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-218653","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>Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - 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\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-29T05:27:46+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\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T05:27:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1092,\"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\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T05:27:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - 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\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-29T05:27:46+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\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988","datePublished":"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T05:27:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988"},"wordCount":1092,"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\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988","name":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T05:27:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-bombay-vs-bhor-industries-ltd-on-20-april-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd on 20 April, 1988"}]},{"@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\/218653","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=218653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218653\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}