{"id":81246,"date":"2008-06-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-20T01:52:00","modified_gmt":"2018-06-19T20:22:00","slug":"mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda & Malimath<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG~.\u20ac:1;OR\u00a7.\u00a7l   \n\nDATED 'I'HlS THE 28TH DAY\" OEJUNE      u  k\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HQNBLE MR.JUS'FICE V..\u00a7}OI5AL'A   E\n\nAND\n\nTHE HON 'BLE MR.JU\u00a7TICE w\\LI;.qATH\n\nCENTRAL SALES TAx.Ar\u00a5?}3AL %mo.L3\/2608 c\/w\nCENTRAL SALES TAXARPEAL. rmz\/zzros c\/w\nCENTRAL...  'PA}(_AI_fPE.5s.l; No.3 1 \/2007\n\nCENTRAL ':~$,gr;_3,\"\u00ab;_:,+,\";;_;3.L_:;_g.J.%i:%g2oos\nBE'I'WEEN;7 . -   L\n\nMr.Ravisi1  '4 'i:1''=2V _ V \" \n\nI'M\/S'.Bi\"g\"   L1m' ited\n\nU'uit~5.,.\" 1o~o%*F.oU \nNo. 2 1:2! 1.17;\"MachGha1}i\n\n V'  . Wshwa  axnfi\ufb01zist\n\nBanga1<ire-\u00a760-  1.  APPELLANT\n\n  9"{By sz~i,I5;.S.Ravisnankar, Advecate)\n\n V _ "\u00a7'he"{3'om1nissioner cf Custems\n 'j  . .;P,B.No.54oo, C.R.Buildings\n  Queens Road,\n Bangalore-560 001. V  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
violation of any provision ef the Customs Act, <\/p>\n
the Rules 8; Regulations framed thereunder, etc.  ~ .<\/p>\n
These csms coming on for hearing   <\/p>\n
GOPALA GOWDA J., delivered the     <\/p>\n
In thase appeals azgdh 2)’
\nby Mr.Ravish Kamath,  \/3.\n<\/p>\n
Big Bags India Pvt. gm.   is \ufb01led
\nby    Dimctor of
\nM\/  possessor of raw
\nmaterials    Appcllant Company<\/p>\n
_(v;1.testi\u00a3?I;iiI”lgA.tl1e.Va1;der passed by the Customs<\/p>\n
  1*!-.;;:f\u00a7sug;.~=:1fi:1\u00a7t;e:V:fi’z:1bux1ai (hcrciImi’\u00a3cr in short called as<\/p>\n
 as levy of penalty for violation’ of<\/p>\n
 vcc:tai1i””term.s’zii1d conditions or 100% Exemp\ufb01cm to the<\/p>\n
 vidc Not.if1mt:i.on No.52\/03-(3%<\/p>\n
  issued uhder ttm Customs Act of 1962<\/p>\n
T  in short ‘Act’). In so far as other two<\/p>\n
 hu\ufb01ppellants are comznemad, they have challenged the<\/p>\n
‘m\/<\/p>\n
penalty imposed upon them 11\/ sec. 110-O of   <\/p>\n
non-complying with the terms   eorid\ufb01iotisii of   <\/p>\n
Noti\ufb01cation granting    <\/p>\n
applicant in the first  to   VA<\/p>\n
fulther direction issued
\n11\/ soc.112–B of the  ‘-of the goods
\nfraxxfmg cortaio  in  which are
\n  for the
\n   goes, in so fm’ as
\nappeal  and in so far as appeal<\/p>\n
Nos.3\/  are concerned the loomed<\/p>\n
 ”   the  contended that the penalty<\/p>\n
  ”   11\/ sec. 1 12–\u00bbB of the Act, pmt1cI’ Jlarly<\/p>\n
 V_ANo;.{3f20()8 for non-compliance’ with the terms<\/p>\n
  conoii\ufb02ons of Exemption Noti\ufb01cation wanted in<\/p>\n
‘    of the appellant Company, who is an exporter<\/p>\n
‘   regard to importing of goods with exemption of<\/p>\n
 ‘ iopayment: of customs duty to  it to use such<\/p>\n
imported goods as raw materials for manufacture of the<\/p>\n
\\\\\\L\/<\/p>\n
goods and export: 100% of the same.  <\/p>\n
exempted imported goods were sold..Q;1     ” ” V<\/p>\n
appeilant in C.S.T.A.No.3l\/2007  7-1:<\/p>\n
penalty upon them under    <\/p>\n
non-compliance with thgf: poxtclitianayyfiof the
\nexemption granted in “4’i3;\u00a7’oi1z’_v  ‘4 ii}
\nAppeal No.2]   it\ufb01xder Section
\n1 1 1-0 upon;  urging varicrus
\ngI’ound$vand_ to  impugned orders by
\nmlsweri\ufb01g “th\ufb01y  _;qi1cstions framed in the<\/p>\n
Appeals: at<\/p>\n
  Aixrtdigputettmfacts of the case are referred to by<\/p>\n
 f.~.ppenare Tribunal in the impugmd<\/p>\n
H V’  the levy of penalty on the tllants is<\/p>\n
_. the prooedum contemplated under the<\/p>\n
‘. “_f’)I2’\\’}vVi8i:{}IlS of the Custams Act read with Rules mud alter<\/p>\n
T  opportunity to the appellants to file thch’<\/p>\n
‘4 A. statement of objections and participate in the<\/p>\n
\\\\~x\/<\/p>\n
proceedings. The Assessing O\ufb01ieer has  <\/p>\n
by recording a \ufb01nding holding  = <\/p>\n
duty free imported goods in   <\/p>\n
Commny in the first   s\u00e9.iee._’asVVViriput <\/p>\n
goods for manufactqxe of  with
\ncertain terms and  ‘4 ie violated by it.\n<\/p>\n
The Adgudicgegg    the
\ncustoms  Vc~<1"I\u00a7\u00e9:Vii:'t\u00a7\u00a7tV\u00a7f'1'VVV'No.3 (:1) (1) (ii) of
\nthe  dated 31-3-2003 as
\n"  72(d) of the Customs Act,<\/p>\n
1962 a112d ; 11eo:   No.4(a) (ii) the Noti\ufb01cation<\/p>\n
  Excise dated 31-3-2003 as<\/p>\n
    saliefying the material' evidence on<\/p>\n
 Assessing Of\ufb01cer has held, that the goods<\/p>\n
  duty free by the appellant company have been<\/p>\n
A ":L."' to M\/s\ufb02hakrapam' Vyapar Pvt.Ltd which is in<\/p>\n
h   x\u00e9iohtion of the exemption noti\ufb01cation ganted hm favour<\/p>\n
of the appellant company in Appeal No.2\/2008. The<\/p>\n
appellant in C.S.'I'.A.No.31\/2007 is the Director of the<\/p>\n
\\N\/<\/p>\n
to that extent the penalty levied awnst the  <\/p>\n
justified and not levying the   ' '<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 28 of   <\/p>\n
excise duty also upon the    " L'<\/p>\n
appeal for contxaventititt of  eeaztditions of
\nexemption order   ef raw
\nmaterial  by  ' the
\ngoods in   e  fadlitate it to
\n  100% duty free
\n  'same to ibreign countries<\/p>\n
and earn  <\/p>\n
 V.   xeomieei for the appellant Sari<\/p>\n
  submits that both customs, excise<\/p>\n
  levied upon the company and its Chief<\/p>\n
  'Executive'3~0t\ufb01eer is erroneous in law. This aspect of the<\/p>\n
   is not oonsidemd by the Appellate Tribmnl While<\/p>\n
 eoizsiderirg the wee put forth before it by the company.<\/p>\n
 ' :~V'Therefore, the learned counsel requests this Court to<\/p>\n
NZ<\/p>\n
answer the re-framed sub\ufb01antial questions of =<\/p>\n
favour of the 9.3% and requests this Lmxrt'  % * <\/p>\n
the above appeals \ufb01led both by    V'<\/p>\n
C.E.O tar setting aside the  <\/p>\n
passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
4. learned counsel fat 2;,  ap’pcIlant in
\nC.S.T.A.No.31\/209.7  that the
\nconcurrent V01.’  the Appelmte
\n‘I’ribuna1   ‘l’\u00a7W-..,__f’\u00b00r the reason that there: is<\/p>\n
no  . for  Ian. I: threats” 1’  ‘<\/p>\n
receipt’ pf  ‘ex\u00e9ij\ufb01pt\u00e9d  duty goods by the<\/p>\n
    for the purpmc of exporting<\/p>\n
 as raw material for mam\ufb01actuze of<\/p>\n
H V’ 100%  :’ggods to export it to some fore-.1g1′<\/p>\n
‘   the absence of knowledge attributed to the<\/p>\n
  above appeal for rmmng” threnmpalted’
\nT  duty fxhe goods or raw materials \ufb01’0El the<\/p>\n
 ‘Company and the same is not establi\ufb01wd by the<\/p>\n
\\N\/<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer to pass order, therefore  _<\/p>\n
is not liabic to pay penalty levied open  ” = <\/p>\n
submits there may be a <\/p>\n
confiscate the goods   bin”.  v<\/p>\n
the knowledge amihuteci a:ne._ having
\nreceived the duty  the duty is
\nnot prtsved,   by his
\ncompany ;is   Section 112\n<\/p>\n
(b) ortne    submitted that the
\nfonov;i;1g’\u00ab—-i;o “Appeal No.31\/2007 woum<\/p>\n
oertainjy’  \u00a3_'(‘\u00a7r’o.’._cof1:sidcz’&tion of this Court and<\/p>\n
 V. ‘_  ;*oqiioat\u00a3:g1__ttns Court to answer the same in his<\/p>\n
 ‘   his appeal:\n<\/p>\n
1} Whether the concurrent finding of fact
\n..   recorded by the Tribmxal is erroneous
\n‘ \\- ” for non-consideration of the mate\ufb02d
\nevidence produced by the appellant
\nbefore the Assessmg Authority wherein
\nhchasstatwthathehadma
\nknowledge that imported goods
\nreceivw by him are supplied to the
\nCompany in cont1’avox1tion of innns<\/p>\n
NM<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
and conditions of the Noti\ufb01cation<\/p>\n
No.52\/02? < T *<\/p>\n
5. With reference to the said legal  <\/p>\n
Mxxshashikanth, the learned    V’<\/p>\n
respondent \/ Assessing Authcifity    31\/  ‘ ~<\/p>\n
has sought to justify the \u00abl
\nrecorded by the Trib1mgl and” it isomltended
\nthat it has reduced   appellant
\nfrom Rs.1,(l{).,(3*i1u_l(\u00a7j-“”i”<)?' which ammt is
\nvery   on the part of the<\/p>\n
'I'ribunalA'i11  Nonetheless, the order<\/p>\n
passggi by   dlyes not call for interference by<\/p>\n
 lzlsis   that the A  Authority<\/p>\n
 Authority have applied their<\/p>\n
 _ miratl'–cori\ufb01ciflizlsly re-apprec1a' ted the facts and mat7c1:1al'<\/p>\n
 record and recorded a finding of ma;<\/p>\n
 that that was a lawwlcclge we the Director of<\/p>\n
l jjl\ufb01tflfil Company in Appeal No.31\/2007 by receiving 100%<\/p>\n
ll  imported goods supplied by the appellant Corapaauy in<\/p>\n
C.S.'I'.A. No.2\/2008 contravcning the <\/p>\n
conditions. Therefore, the question of Law    <\/p>\n
for consideration of this Comt    <\/p>\n
the appeals with costs.\n<\/p>\n
6. We have heard the for V<\/p>\n
the parties and   me
\nfinding of fa\ufb01t  Tribunal with
\nregard to 1evyi:\u00a7;Lg%’ pt ‘Chief Executive’ %
\nO\ufb01icer of    availed 100%
\n  the imported goods
\nwho is%%n:1\u00a7e “CSTA No.2\/2008 and the<\/p>\n
lZ)1re<'*' .;.cz*_of   who is the posse% of<\/p>\n
.   to the Company, we have to<\/p>\n
 EI;.r:V1a\\\u00a7'.V7V\u20ac;'1"-  the question of law framed by the<\/p>\n
 _ appe.1laJ\u00a7ts C.S.T.A N032 and 3\/2008 do arise or not<\/p>\n
 Lof  t \ufb01nding of fact based on<\/p>\n
 facts and material on record, viz, that the<\/p>\n
kj  %. ' c\ufb01mpany has availed 100% 13.0.0: and had the bene\ufb01t<\/p>\n
\\\\v<\/p>\n
   for 100% export.\n<\/p>\n
 ewsof the  Veovnditions of the exemption granted in<\/p>\n
_  oi’ taepellant in CSTA No.2\/2008, but still the
\n  material imported is not misused by the<\/p>\n
   by selling in the open market, the said
\n  is not mpmd by the Asmmg Authority<\/p>\n
  who is the fact \ufb01nding amhority. The said \ufb01m\ufb01ng of<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
of raw materials imported with free custom
\nduty on certain terms and conditions’    ., ..
\nDepartment. The exporter ofthe
\nto utilim those 100% duty
\nmaterials for the purpqse of  gcgode to
\nexport it to foreign    exchange to
\nthe country.   company to
\nthe Show    given before
\nthe Assessing’   were given to
\nM]   Ltd., is not for saie but<\/p>\n
Company  ”  raw materials \ufb01m it<\/p>\n
‘IV’.h:eref’e’1e,A it  that there was contravention<\/p>\n
fact is confirmed by both the First Appellate e<\/p>\n
and Tribunal by recording valid and   <\/p>\n
after re-appreciatzion of material    ‘V<\/p>\n
with reference to the legal   <\/p>\n
by the appellants in  ‘-&;  3! ‘V<\/p>\n
careful perusal of
\npassed by the Tribunal’   mecment<\/p>\n
with the View  the   does not call<\/p>\n
for    ‘-tn…  of customs duty,
\nexcise  ~  on the Company<\/p>\n
  $63.2 & 3\/2008. Therefore, we<\/p>\n
 v  _hol;:\u00a7 me  liable to be dismiswd holding<\/p>\n
  –._substant:ial questions of law would not<\/p>\n
  reason tkmt the fact \ufb01ndmg” authority”<\/p>\n
?,_nas  a \ufb01nding of fact holding that the cmmpmd<\/p>\n
A 5.’ has cun\ufb01avmmed the terms and conditions of<\/p>\n
‘   the exemption noti\ufb01cation in not utilising the 100%<\/p>\n
 exempted imported materials for manuihcture of goods<\/p>\n
\\m\/<\/p>\n
to export the same to the foreign countries and <\/p>\n
finding is concurred with by the appellate  J  <\/p>\n
7. In so tier as Director of  <\/p>\n
duty free imported goods _ is  is’<\/p>\n
undisputed fact that the supiily of” <i'u_t_y'-
\ngoods by the 10()%.'::<i~u_1:y   with
\ncertain terms and  dated
\n2 1\/03;     wh1owledge of the
\nappe\ufb02mr\u00e9t j  a suppiier Comwly
\nis 100%   of fact recorded by me<\/p>\n
  T\ufb01bggial   ta cencurrent \ufb01nding of fact is that<\/p>\n
    "\u00ab..(3ompany had the knowledge of recem' 'Hg<\/p>\n
 imported goods. The said \ufb01nding of<\/p>\n
 _fact"is  by the Tribunal and reduced penalty<\/p>\n
an the appellant in C.S.T.A.No.31f200'7.<\/p>\n
 we do not \ufb01nd any ground uryd by the<\/p>\n
b big "iea"m: ed counsei Mr.Gur1n'a_.j. in this appeal axe tenable in<\/p>\n
9'  law, and tllerefere there is no need for us to interfere<\/p>\n
1'?\n<\/p>\n
with the order of penalty imposed upon the <\/p>\n
the oommny which has received 100%  <\/p>\n
from the company.\n<\/p>\n
8. For the aforesaid   <\/p>\n
the Director of  ‘raw .’  am
\ndismissed. No order 933  L ‘4   _<\/p>\n
  ,59a-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008 Author: V.Gopalagowda & Malimath IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG~.\u20ac:1;OR\u00a7.\u00a7l DATED ‘I’HlS THE 28TH DAY” OEJUNE u k PRESENT THE HQNBLE MR.JUS’FICE V..\u00a7}OI5AL’A E AND THE HON ‘BLE MR.JU\u00a7TICE w\\LI;.qATH CENTRAL SALES TAx.Ar\u00a5?}3AL %mo.L3\/2608 c\/w CENTRAL SALES TAXARPEAL. […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 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\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-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=\"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-19T20:22:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T20:22:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1592,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-19T20:22:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 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":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 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\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-19T20:22:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T20:22:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008"},"wordCount":1592,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008","name":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-19T20:22:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravish-kamath-vs-the-commissioner-of-customs-on-28-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr Ravish Kamath vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 28 June, 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\/81246","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=81246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}