{"id":70505,"date":"2008-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-02-04T07:23:42","modified_gmt":"2014-02-04T01:53:42","slug":"k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 330 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. K.C.JAMES\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE ASST. COLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.HARILAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.V.SABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :18\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                             Crl.R.P.No.330 of 2001\n                           --------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008.\n\n                                        ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
            Revision petitioner was charge sheeted by the Assistant Collector<\/p>\n
of Air Customs for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(i) of the<\/p>\n
Customs Act (for short, ‘the Act’). He faced trial for the said offences in the Court<\/p>\n
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam<\/p>\n
in C.C.No.58 of 1992. He was found guilty, convicted for the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 135(1)(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
three years and payment of fine of Rs.10,000\/-. Aggrieved, he preferred appeal<\/p>\n
as Crl.Appeal No.241 of 1996 but that was dismissed. Hence this revision.<\/p>\n
                     2.    Heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    3.     Following points are raised for consideration:-<\/p>\n
                 (1) Whether conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act is legal and proper?<\/p>\n
                 (2) Whether sentence is excessive?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    4.      Perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
              Point No.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 5. Case is that revision petitioner along with his wife and child<\/p>\n
landed at Thiruvananthapuram Air port having come from Zurich, (via) Colombo<\/p>\n
by Air Lanka flight.   He came      through counter No.1 without declaring any<\/p>\n
dutiable goods or gold and moved out. He was carrying two bags. Customs<\/p>\n
authorities (PWs 1 and 2) felt suspicious about the conduct of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner, intercepted the revision petitioner and seized a gold bar and a gold<\/p>\n
coin along with US dollars. Ext.P2 is the mahazar for the seizure. The gold bar<\/p>\n
and gold coin were weighed and assayed by PW3, a gold dealer who certified<\/p>\n
that it has purity of 24 carat. Statement of revision petitioner and his wife were<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 108 of the Act (Exts.P7 and P8, respectively). PWs 4<\/p>\n
and 5 are attestors in Ext.P2 mahazar. Though they did not admit the case in<\/p>\n
full,   admitted signing Ext.P2. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and found that revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
smuggled the gold bar and gold coin into this country and convicted him under<\/p>\n
Section 135(1)(i) of the Act. It is contended by the learned counsel that the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is contradictory and cannot be believed. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that at any rate, there is no proper evaluation of the gold bar and gold<\/p>\n
coin and therefore, conviction under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act cannot stand.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Assistant Collector v.<\/p>\n
Ismail (2002(3) KLT SN 91).\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
                    6.      PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence regarding the alleged<\/p>\n
incident.  Ext.P8, statement of wife of revision petitioner,        recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 108 of the Act was not taken into account by the learned Additional Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate for the reason that the prosecution had no case that she was<\/p>\n
not available for examination and hence Ext.P8 is not relevant for consideration.<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 is the statement of the revision petitioner recorded under Section 108 of<\/p>\n
the Act.  In Ext.P7 it is specifically admitted that the gold bar and gold coin were<\/p>\n
brought by the revision petitioner to Thiruvananthapuram Air port. Contention as<\/p>\n
regards Ext.P7 is that it was got recorded under threat.         Learned Additional<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that challenge to Ext.P7 in that way came<\/p>\n
only after five months of the incident and hence that contention cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 7.         One contention raised by the learned counsel is that<\/p>\n
the gold bar and gold coin said to be seized as per Ext.P2 are not produced<\/p>\n
before the Court. But, it is not pointed out that there is any provision in the Act<\/p>\n
which required the same to be produced in the criminal court. Moreover, it is not<\/p>\n
disputed that the same were confiscated by the customs authorities.<\/p>\n
Prosecution has produced documents to prove the fact of seizure. Therefore<\/p>\n
non-production of the gold bar and gold coin cannot be fatal.              On going<\/p>\n
through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, I find no reason to disbelieve them. That<\/p>\n
the gold bar and gold coin bore foreign markings along with the fact that revision<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner was coming from Zurich by flight revealed that the gold in question<\/p>\n
were smuggled. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
findings of the courts below regarding the incident.<\/p>\n
                     8.     For the offence to come under Section 135(1)(i) of<\/p>\n
the Act it has to be shown that the market price of the gold seized exceeded<\/p>\n
Rupees one lakh.      According to PW3, he        adopted     touchstone method to<\/p>\n
ascertain the purity of gold in the gold bar and gold coin. In the decision relied<\/p>\n
on by the learned counsel and referred supra it was held that touchstone method<\/p>\n
is not a full proof method to establish the purity of gold. In that view, conviction<\/p>\n
in that case was converted from Section 135(1)(i) to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
In this case, PW1 claimed that he assessed the market value while according to<\/p>\n
PW2, he did that. Going by the evidence of PW1, he relied on the market value<\/p>\n
of gold given in newspapers to assess the market value of the gold in question.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate pointed out that those newspapers<\/p>\n
are not produced in court and further, that PW1 was not able to say the market<\/p>\n
value of gold on the day he was giving evidence but he admitted that there will<\/p>\n
be    fluctuation in the market value. Going by the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is seen that much reliance was not placed<\/p>\n
on the version of PW1 regarding the market value. But the learned Additional<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate thought that it is difficult to think that the value of 531<\/p>\n
grams of gold (weight of the gold bar and gold coin together) is less than Rupees<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
one lakh as on the date of incident. I am not inclined to think that any such<\/p>\n
judicial notice could have been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, particularly as there was no material before that court to find what<\/p>\n
exactly was the market value of gold on the date of incident. Therefore, I am<\/p>\n
persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel that on the premise<\/p>\n
that the market value of the gold is above Rupees one lakh, conviction of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner for offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained. Conviction of the revision petitioner is altered to one under Section<\/p>\n
135(1)(ii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  Point No.2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      10.  It is contended by       the    learned counsel that<\/p>\n
imprisonment is not mandatory for offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submits that revision petitioner has already undergone<\/p>\n
imprisonment for nine days (from 8.12.1991 to 17.12.1991). It is also submitted<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel that almost 17 years have passed by since the date of<\/p>\n
incident and that revision petitioner is not involved in any other case before or<\/p>\n
after the incident.   Learned counsel brought to my notice      decisions of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court where the sentence was modified<\/p>\n
as one of fine.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
                   11.        Question whether sentence is liable to be modified<\/p>\n
has to be depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Decisions on<\/p>\n
the point will certainly be a guideline in deciding that issue. I have altered the<\/p>\n
conviction under Section 135(1)(i) i to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. Revision<\/p>\n
petitioner has already undergone detention for nine days. I am not inclined to<\/p>\n
think that after 17 years, revision petitioner has to be sent to the jail particularly<\/p>\n
as he is not shown to be involved in any other case before or after the case on<\/p>\n
hand. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to think that the substantive<\/p>\n
sentence awarded to the revision petitioner can be modified as confined to the<\/p>\n
period of detention already undergone and sentence of fine is sufficient to meet<\/p>\n
the ends of justice. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case the<\/p>\n
fine payable by the revision petitioner is fixed as Rs.50,000\/-.<\/p>\n
                       Resultantly, revision petition    is allowed in part in the<\/p>\n
following lines:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                       1.     Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 135<\/p>\n
(1)(i) of the Act is altered to under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
                       2.     Substantive sentence       awarded to     the  revision\n\npetitioner will be confined to the period of detention which he has           already\n\n<\/pre>\n
undergone. Revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
Fiftythousand only) and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
for three months. Revision petitioner is granted two months time from today to<\/p>\n
pay the fine. Bail bond is cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 Crl.M.P.No.1443 of 2001 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                      JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.330\/2001<\/p>\n
                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
                          Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
                          Crl.R.P.No.330 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                ORDER<\/p>\n
                          18th November, 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 330 of 2001() 1. K.C.JAMES … Petitioner Vs 1. THE ASST. COLECTOR OF CUSTOMS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SABU The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :18\/11\/2008 O R […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-04T01:53:42+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\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-04T01:53:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1452,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\",\"name\":\"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-04T01:53:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-04T01:53:42+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\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-04T01:53:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008"},"wordCount":1452,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008","name":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-04T01:53:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-james-vs-the-asst-colector-of-customs-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.C.James vs The Asst. Colector Of Customs on 18 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/70505","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=70505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}