{"id":50564,"date":"2005-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005"},"modified":"2016-04-23T01:32:47","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T20:02:47","slug":"ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/03\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN       \n\nW.P.No.6634 of 2005  \n\nM\/s.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd.\nRep., by its Director R.Kesavan\n11A (29 III), Sarathy Nagar\nVelachery \nChennai 600 042                         .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Govt. Of India, rep., by its Secretary\n  Ministry of Finance\n  Department of Revenue, Udyog Bhavan  \n  New Delhi  100 001\n\n2.Chief Commissioner ofCustoms  \n  Customs House  \n  No.33 Rajaji Salai\n  Chennai  600 001\n\n3.Commissioenr of Customs (Import) \n  Cstoms House  \n  No.33 Rajaji Salai\n   Chennai  600 001\n\n4.Additional Commissioner of Customs  \n  Customs House  \n  No.33 Rajaji Salai\n  Chennai  600 001                              .. Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\nseeking to issue a writ of mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.S.Murugappan\n\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,\n                Addl.Solicitor General,\n                Assisted by\n                Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam,\n                S.C.G.S.C.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        This  writ  petition  is  filed  seeking  to issue a writ of mandamus,<br \/>\ndirecting the respondents to make appropriate changes in the  Electronic  Data<br \/>\nInterchange  System  to  enable filing of the documents in accordance with the<br \/>\nactual transaction value as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  When the matter came up for hearing, by  consent,  the  main  writ<br \/>\npetition itself is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   It is admitted by both the parties that the Customs Department is<br \/>\nintroducing complete  computerisation.    According  to  the  petitioner,  the<br \/>\nrespondents should make appropriate changes in the Electronic Data Interchange<br \/>\nSystem  (EDI  System  in  short),  to process the documents in accordance with<br \/>\nactual transaction value, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Learned  Additional  Solicitor   General,   appearing   for   the<br \/>\nrespondents  submitted that the actual transaction value, as per Section 14 of<br \/>\nthe Customs Act, 1962, can be entered in the documents prepared as per the EDI<br \/>\nSystem.  The system,  it  appears,  was  originally  introduced  in  1999  and<br \/>\nthereafter updated in 2003 and again in 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that some of<br \/>\nthe importers had indulged in systematic suppression of the actual transaction<br \/>\nvalue  in  the manual system and they had declared the value at which they had<br \/>\nsold the imported goods to the local buyers before the  goods  are  taken  out<br \/>\nfrom the  bonded  warehouse  for home consumption.  Therefore, the respondents<br \/>\nhave attempted to eliminate the possibilities of such suppression.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  According to the learned Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing<br \/>\nfor the respondents, the present EDI System of the Customs Department contains<br \/>\nall the  details necessary regarding the transaction value.  According to him,<br \/>\nthe relief actually sought for has already been  granted  and  the  petitioner<br \/>\ncannot ask for inclusion of other details which are not warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      Rule  4  of  the  Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of<br \/>\nImported Goods) Rules, 1988, read as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4.  Transaction Value :  (1) The transaction value of imported goods shall be<br \/>\nthe price actually paid or payable for the  goods  when  sold  for  export  to<br \/>\nIndia, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules.<br \/>\n(2)  The transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) above shall be<br \/>\naccepted :\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) the sale is in the  ordinary  course  of  trade  under  fully  competitive<br \/>\nconditions;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  the  sale  does  not  involve any abnormal discount or reduction from the<br \/>\nordinary competitive price;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) the sale does not involve special discounts limited to exclusive agents;\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) objective and quantifiable data  exist  with  regard  to  the  adjustments<br \/>\nrequired to be made, under the provisions of rule 9, to the transaction value;\n<\/p>\n<p>(e) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the<br \/>\nbuyer other than restrictions which &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods;\n<\/p>\n<p>(f)  the  sale  or price is not subject to same condition or consideration for<br \/>\nwhich a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued;\n<\/p>\n<p>(g) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use  of  the<br \/>\ngoods  by  the buyer will accrued directly or indirectly to the seller, unless<br \/>\nan appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance  with  the  provisions  of<br \/>\nRule 9 of these rules; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(h)  the  buyer  and seller are not related, or where the buyer and seller are<br \/>\nrelated, that transaction value is<br \/>\nacceptable for customs purposes under the provisions sub-rule (3)below;\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) (a) Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be<br \/>\naccepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the<br \/>\nimported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) in a  sale  between  related  persons,  the  transaction  value  shall  be<br \/>\naccepted,  whenever  the  importer demonstrates that the declared value of the<br \/>\ngoods being valued, closely  approximates  to  one  of  the  following  values<br \/>\nascertained at or about the same time &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        (i) the transaction value of identical goods or similar goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        (ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        (iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>        Provided  that in applying the values used for comparison, due account<br \/>\nshall be taken of  demonstrated  difference  in  commercial  levels,  quantity<br \/>\nlevels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules<br \/>\nand  cost  incurred  by  the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not<\/p>\n<p>related;<\/p>\n<pre>\n(c) substitute values shall not be established under the        provisions  of\nclause (b)      of this sub-rule.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        8.   learned  counsel  for the petitioner referred to the decisions in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1102217\/\">Garden Silk Mills Ltd.  v.  Union of India,<\/a> 1999 (113) E.L.T.  358 <a href=\"\/doc\/66090\/\">(S.C.)  and<br \/>\nHyderabad Industries Ltd.   v.  Union of India,<\/a> 2000 (115) E.L.T.  5 93 (S.C.)<br \/>\nand submitted that the transaction value should include the value at which the<br \/>\nimporter had sold the goods to the buyer before they are exbonded.   According<br \/>\nto  the  learned  counsel,  the  Act  recognises  sales,  before completion of<br \/>\nimportation or in bond before Customs clearance and so, the EDI System  should<br \/>\nprovide for inclusion of these details.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The decision in 2000 (115) E.L.T.  593 (S.C.) cited supra, relates<br \/>\nto  high  seas  sales transaction and therefore, the Supreme Court referred to<br \/>\nthe inclusion of services charges in the sale consideration.   The  petitioner<br \/>\nis unable to show how and why a high seas sales transaction is similar to sale<br \/>\nof goods  in bond.  The definition of &#8221; transaction value&#8221; refers to the price<br \/>\nactually paid when sold for export and not to the price at which the  importer<br \/>\nsold the goods before exbonding.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  In  1999  (113) E.L.T.  358 (S.C.) cited supra, the question that<br \/>\ncame up for consideration related to import duty and the  Supreme  Court  held<br \/>\nthat the taxable event is reached when the goods reach the Customs barrier and<br \/>\nthe Bill of Entry for home consumption is filed.  In that context, the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  observed  that the value for the purpose of assessing import duty would<br \/>\nbe determined with relation  to  &#8220;the  time  when  physical  delivery  to  the<br \/>\nimporter  can  take  place,  which  can be only after the bill of entry, inter<br \/>\nalia, for home consumption is filed.  The Supreme Court also held that  it  is<br \/>\nnot  possible  to  agree with the submission that the moment the goods entered<br \/>\nthe territorial waters, the import is complete.  Hence the Supreme Court  held<br \/>\nthat  the  import of goods into India would commence when the goods cross into<br \/>\nthe territorial waters but continues and would be completed when the goods has<br \/>\nbecome part of the mass of the goods and taxable being  reached  at  the  time<br \/>\nwhen the goods reach the customs barriers.  I do not see how this decision can<br \/>\nhelp  the  petitioner to support their case that the EDI System should include<br \/>\ndetails of the buyers to whom the goods are sold before they are exbonded  and<br \/>\nthat value should be taken into account while declaring the transaction value.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     More recently,  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1365743\/\">Commissioner  of Customs, Mumbai vs.  M\/s.<br \/>\nBureau Veritas,<\/a> 2005 A.I.R.  S.C.W.  993, the Supreme Court observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The ambit and method of Rule 4 was elaborately  dealt  with  by  this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1410020\/\">Eicher Tractors Ltd.  v.  Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai,<\/a> 2000 (122)<br \/>\nE.L.T.  321.\n<\/p>\n<p>        It  is  true  that  the Rules are framed under Section 14(1-A) and are<br \/>\nsubject to the conditions in Section 14(1).    Rule  4  is  in  fact  directly<br \/>\nrelatable to  Section  14(1).   Both Section 14(1) and Rule 4 provide that the<br \/>\nprice paid by an importer to the vendor in the  ordinary  course  of  commerce<br \/>\nshall  be  taken  to  be  the  value  in  the  absence  of  any of the special<br \/>\ncircumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularised in Rule 4(2).\n<\/p>\n<p>        Rule 4(1) speaks  of  the  transaction  value.    Utilisation  of  the<br \/>\ndefinite  article  indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the<br \/>\npurpose of assessment to customs duty is  the  price  actually  paid  for  the<br \/>\nparticular  transaction,  unless  of  course the price is unacceptable for the<br \/>\nreasons set out in Rule 4(2).  &#8220;Payable&#8217; in the context  of  the  language  of<br \/>\nRule   4(1)   must,  therefore,  be  read  as  referring  to  &#8216;the  particular<br \/>\ntransaction&#8217;  and  payability  in  respect  of  the  transaction  envisages  a<br \/>\nsituation where payment of price may be deferred.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   According  to  the  respondents,  the  particulars  required for<br \/>\ndetermining the transaction value are calculated  under  the  EDI  System  and<br \/>\nnothing further needs to be included in Rule 4 of the said Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     Therefore,  it is clear that the transaction value as per Rule<br \/>\n4 is the price paid by the importer to the vendor.  Learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  would submit that if the name of the purchaser from the petitioner<br \/>\nis not reflected in the documents submitted as per the EDI  System,  then  the<br \/>\npurchaser will  face hardship.  I do not see how we are concerned with that so<br \/>\nlong as the EDI System  takes  into  it  all  the  particulars  necessary  for<br \/>\nassessing the transaction value as per Rule 4 and Section 14.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     Learned  counsel  for the petitioner further submitted that as<br \/>\nlong as the manual system was in operation, he could introduce the name of his<br \/>\npurchaser and it is only after the EDI System has been introduced that  it  is<br \/>\nnot possible to feed the name into the computer.  It is again repeated that so<br \/>\nlong  as  the  EDI System provides for all the details required to be recorded<br \/>\nfor the purpose of declaration of the transaction  value,  for  recording  any<br \/>\nadditional  detail  as per the petitioner&#8217;s wish, a mandamus cannot be issued.<br \/>\nIn these circumstances, I am  unable  to  accept  the  petitioner&#8217;s  case  for<br \/>\nissuance of a mandamus.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.   Learned  counsel for the petitioner produced a xerox copy of the<br \/>\npublic notice issued by the Customs Department regarding changes  effected  in<br \/>\nthe EDI   System   procedures.      The  petitioner  has  also  given  several<br \/>\nrepresentations, including one dated 30.9.2004, expressing the difficulties of<br \/>\nthe petitioner.    The  respondents  are  directed  to   consider   the   said<br \/>\nrepresentation  dated 30.9.2004 and pass orders within two weeks from the date<br \/>\nof receipt of copy of this order and dispose of the same  in  accordance  with<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.     Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner submitted that at least<br \/>\nuntil their representation his considered, they must be permitted to file  the<br \/>\ndocuments according  to  the  manual  system.    This direction also cannot be<br \/>\nissued in view of the fact that since the main prayer is not granted, no  such<br \/>\ndirection can be given in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.   With  the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nNo costs.  W.P.M.P.No.7287\/2005 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sks <\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary<br \/>\nDepartment of Revenue<br \/>\nGovt.  Of India<br \/>\nUdyog Bhavan<br \/>\nMinistry of Finance<br \/>\nNew Delhi 100 001 <\/p>\n<p>2.Chief Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\nCustoms House<br \/>\nNo.33 Rajaji Salai<br \/>\nChennai 600 001 <\/p>\n<p>3.Commissioenr of Customs (Import)<br \/>\nCstoms House<br \/>\nNo.33 Rajaji Salai<br \/>\nChennai 600 001 <\/p>\n<p>4.Additional Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\nCustoms House<br \/>\nNo.33 Rajaji Salai<br \/>\nChennai 600 001 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/03\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mrs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN W.P.No.6634 of 2005 M\/s.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd. Rep., by its Director R.Kesavan 11A (29 III), Sarathy Nagar Velachery Chennai 600 042 .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.Govt. Of [&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-50564","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T20:02:47+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\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T20:02:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1811,\"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\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T20:02:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T20:02:47+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\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T20:02:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005"},"wordCount":1811,"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\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005","name":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T20:02:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-texon-india-pvt-ltd-vs-govt-of-india-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Texon (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Govt. Of India on 21 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/50564","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=50564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}