{"id":81994,"date":"1997-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997"},"modified":"2017-05-29T03:44:51","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T22:14:51","slug":"the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: Bharucha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     BHARUCHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the
\nCustoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and it
\nconcerns and  assessment of project imports for the purposes
\nof Customs duty.\n<\/p>\n
     Prior to  the introduction\t of Item  72A in the earlier
\nCustom Tariff,\tIndividual imports,  Though intended  for  a
\nsingle project, were separately assessed to Customs duty, To
\nobviate the  inconveniences that  resulted, the\t facility of
\nproject imports\t was introduced\t and it\t required  that\t the
\ncontract  relating   to\t the   project\timport\t should\t  be
\nregistered. The\t Project Imports  (Registration of Contract)
\nRegulations, 1964,  were introduced  as a  consequence. They
\nprovide that  every importer claiming assessment of articles
\nfalling under the relevant entry, being Heading 84.66 of the
\npresent Customs\t Tariff, should apply to appropriate officer
\nof Customs at the port where the goods are t be imported for
\nregistration of his contract. The application in that behalf
\nmust specify  “such other  particulars as  may be considered
\nnecessary by  the Appropriate  Officer for  the purposes  of
\nassessment under the said Heading”.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellants   entered\tinto  a\t contract  on  19th.
\nDecember, 1978,\t with corporations  doing  business  in\t the
\nUnited Stated  of America  in the  style of  ‘Hercofina’  to
\npurchase  manufacturing\t  equipment,  apparatus,  machinery,
\nincluding  spare   parts  and\taccessories,  comprised\t  in
\nHercofina’s  plant  at\tBurlington,  New  Jersey,  USA,\t for
\nmanufacture of\tDimethyl Terephthlate  (DMT) at the price of
\nUS $  10,000,000,00  (US  $  ten  million).  The  appellants
\napplied for  registration of  the said\tcontract  under\t the
\nProject Import\tRegistration of\t Contract Regulations  1965,
\n(hereinafter called “the said Regulations”). On 11th. April,
\n1979, The appellants were informed by the under Secretary to
\nthe Government\tof India  in the  Department  of  Industrial
\nDevelopment, Ministry  of Industry  that the  Government had
\napproved the  import by\t the  appellants  of  the  aforesaid
\ncapital goods for the production of DMT for the CIF value of
\nUS $  17 million.  It was  noted in the said letter that the
\nappellants would  be incurring\tas dismantling\tcharges\t the
\ncost of US $ 5.50 million for which necessary clearance from
\nthe Reserve Bank should be obtained. On 21st. may, 1979, the
\nDeputy Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals and
\nFertilizers required the appellants to furnish a certificate
\nfrom a\tfirm of\t Chartered Engineers regarding the soundness
\nand reliability\t of the aforesaid plant before incurring any
\nexpenditure for\t its purchase.\tOn 1st.\t August,  1981,\t the
\nUnder Secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs in the
\nMinistry of  Finance informed  the  Reserve  Bank  that\t the
\nGovernment had\tapproved the  procurement of  capital goods,
\ntechnical assistance,  etc.,  in  connection  with  the\t DMT
\nproject of the appellants thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t Value\n<\/p>\n
i)   Import of Capital Goods\t\tUS $ 17.00 million\n<\/p>\n
ii)  Overseas dismantling charge etc.\tUS $ 5.5 million\n<\/p>\n
iii) Fee for Technology & Technical\tUS $ 2.5 million”\n<\/p>\n
     Assistance.\n<\/p>\n
     On 24th.  August,\t1982,  the  Assistant  Collector  of
\nCustoms, Bombay,  informed  the\t appellants  that  the\tsaid
\ncontract had been registered and that spare to the extent of
\n10 percent  of the value of the main machinery were eligible
\nfor the\t concessional rate of assessment under Heading 84.66\n<\/p>\n
(ii). On 30th September, 1982, the Reserve Bank informed the
\nappellants that\t it had\t agreed to  the expenditure  by\t the
\nappellants of US $ 5.5 million towards dismantling and other
\ncharges in  respect of\tthe import of aforesaid plant, which
\ncharges were  not required  to be  endorsed  on\t the  import
\nlicence issued\tfor that  import. On  8th October, 1982, the
\nJoint  Controller  of  Imports\tand  exports  wrote  to\t the
\nCollector of  Customs, Bombay,\tasking the  Collector not to
\ndebit the  said dismantling charges to the face value of the
\nsaid import licence.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended by the appellants before the Tribunal
\nthat there  had been  a pre-assessment of the said plant and
\nthat, therefore,  the Collector\t of Customs  was in error in
\napplying the  provision of  Section 14 of the Customs Act to
\nthe valuation  of the  said plant fr the purposes of Customs
\nduty. The  Tribunal did\t not accept  the argument  that\t the
\nregistration of the said contract by the Customs in terms of
\nthe said Regulations amounted to pre-assessment of the value
\nof the said plant. It accepted the argument on behalf of the
\nRevenue that  there had\t only been  a provisional assessment
\nand it\twas open to the Collector to value the said plant on
\nthe basis of Section 14.\n<\/p>\n
     Before us\tit was\taccepted that  there had been only a
\nprovisional assessment\tat the\tstage when the said contract
\nwas registered\tunder  the  said  Regulations,\tbut  it\t was
\nsubmitted  that\t once  the  value  of  the  said  plant\t was
\ndetermined at  US 4  17 million\t and the  said contract\t was
\nregistered under  the  said  Regulation\t read  with  Heading
\n84.66, then,  for the  purposes of the final assessment, the
\nvalue of the said plant had to be taken to be the value that
\nhad been  so determined\t and it\t was  open  to\tthe  Customs
\nauthorities not\t to accept  that value\tonly  if  there\t was
\nmaterial to  indicate that  it was  arrived at on account of
\nsome error  or a  particular item  fell outside the scope of
\nthe project  import. We\t find it  difficult  to\t accept\t the
\nsubmission. Once  it is accepted that there is not more than
\na provisional  assessment at  the stage when the contract is
\nregistered under  the said  Regulations, it  is open  to the
\nCustoms authorities  to make  a final assessment taking into
\naccount all  factors that are relevant thereto, and they are
\nnot inhibited  by reason of the registration of the contract
\nunder the said Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  now is  whether the\tCustoms\t authorities
\nhave taken relevant factors into account in making the final
\nassessment of the said plant.\n<\/p>\n
     The  adjudicating\tauthority  added  the  following  in
\nmaking the  final assessment of the value of the said plant,
\nand was upheld by the Tribunal :\n<\/p>\n
”\t\t\t\t\t\t       US $\n<\/p>\n
1.   Inspection\/dismantling\/packing and forwarding  3847621\n<\/p>\n
2.   Vendor inspection\t\t\t\t     339253\n<\/p>\n
3.   Insulation removal\t\t\t\t      691981\n<\/p>\n
4.   Insurance in USA\t\t\t\t      139365\n<\/p>\n
5.   Tata Incorporated charges\t\t\t      217500\n<\/p>\n
6.    Reimbursement  to Tata Incorporated for misc. Expenses
\nsuch as\t equivalent transport,\tcopying,  telephone,  telex,
\npostage legal expenditure.\t\t\t      265018\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      ———————-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t       5500738\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       ———————\n<\/p>\n
     After some\t debate, learned  counsel for the appellants
\nfairly stated  that he\tcould not  contest the\taddition  of
\ndismantling, packing  and forwarding  charges in  item no. 1
\nabove; and  “insurance in  USA”, being\titem  no.  4  above,
\nbecause these  expenses arose  upon the\t terms of  the\tsaid
\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n
     The amount\t relating to  inspection in item no .1 above
\nis US  $ 1.048\tmillion. It was submitted by learned counsel
\nfor the appellants that these inspection charge could not be
\nincluded in  the assessable  value the\tsaid  plant  as\t the
\ninspection was\toptional. It  did not flow from the terms of
\nthe said  contract nor\tdid it enhance the value of the said
\nplant. It  was not  needed to  incurred for  dismantling the
\nsaid plant  and making\tit ready  for transport. It was only
\nfor determining\t what parts of the said plant needed repair.
\nThe Tribunal  had been\terror in emphasising clause 9 of the
\nsaid contract  in holding that these inspection charges were
\nincludible for\tthe purposes  of arriving  at the assessable
\nvalue of  the said  plant. Clause  9 of\t the  said  contract
\nrecords that  independent certification\t of the condition of
\nthe said  plant was  required to  enable the  appellants  to
\nobtain an  import licence  for it.  It was, therefore, agree
\nthat  the  appellants  would  engage.  in  consulation\twith
\nHercofina, and\tengineering contractor,\t at the\t appellants’
\nexpense, to  inspect the  major pieces of the said plant and
\nissue a\t certificate in\t this behalf.  It seems\t to us clear
\nthat this  inspection, carried\tout by\tCatalytic  Inc.\t was
\npursuant to the aforementioned term of the said contract and
\nthe expenditure\t incurred i  that behalf was rightly held by
\nthe Tribunal to flow thereout.\n<\/p>\n
     Insofar  as  “Vendor  inspection”\t(item  2  above)  is
\nconcerned, it  appears\tthat  it  was  carried\tout  by\t the
\noriginal supplier  of the said plant. It was not required to
\nbe incurred  for the  purposes of dismantling the said plant
\nnor for\t making it  ready for being transported. There is no
\nmaterial shown\tto us  from the\t record\t that  suggests\t the
\ncontrary. we are, hence, of the view that the expenditure on
\nthis inspection\t should not have been taken into account for
\nthe purposes of arriving at the assessable value of the said
\nplant.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellants submitted that the
\nexpenditure incurred  on “insulation  removal” Item 3 above)
\nshould also  not  have\tbeen  taken  into  account  for\t the
\npurposes of  arriving at  the assessable  value of  the said
\nplant. Under  the terms\t of clause 4 of the said contract it
\nwas the\t obligation of the appellants, at their own cost and
\nexpense, to  make all  arrangements and\t perform  all  work,
\nthemselves or through agents or contractors of their choice,
\nnecessary to  effect  dismantling,  packing,  removal  an  d
\nshipment of  the said plant from Burlington, New Jersey. The
\nsaid  plant   as  installed   was  insulated   by  asbestos.
\nEnvironmental  laws  in\t the  U.S.A.  required\tby  asbestos
\ninsulation that\t was removed  from the\tsaid  plant  in\t New
\nJersey to  enable the said plant to be transported had to be
\nburied at  an approved\tsite. It  was, therefore,  that\t the
\nappellants had\tto  engage  the\t services  of  a  specialist
\ncontractor who\tcame to the site with protective devices and
\nvehicles to  remove the asbestos insulation and transport it
\nto the\tburial site.  Learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellants
\nsubmitted  that,   while  the  said  contract  required\t the
\nappellants to  dismantle the  said plant  and, therefore, to
\nremove the  asbestos insulation,  it  did  not\trequire\t the
\nappellants to  bury the\t asbestos. We  must proceed upon the
\nassumption that the said contract required the appellants to
\ncarry out  their obligations  thereunder in a lawful manner.
\nIt was,\t therefore,  implicit  that  the  appellants  should
\nconform\t to  the  law  that  required  to  removed  asbestos
\ninsulation of the said plant to be buried. The obligation in
\nthis  behalf  flowed  out  of  the  said  contract  and\t the
\nexpenditure incurred  thereon was rightly taken into account
\nin determining the assessable value of the plant.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  had entered  into a  contract with M\/s.
\nTata Projects for providing services in India with regard to
\nconstruction of\t the said  plant. They had agreed to pay the
\nexpenses in  this behalf actually incurred by M\/s. Tata Inc.
\nin the\tU.S.A. and  their fees.\t Accordingly, the appellants
\nhad paid  the fees  of M\/s.  Tata Inc.\t(item 5\t above)\t and
\nreimbursed them\t for the expenditure which they had actually
\nincurred (item\t6 above). Learned counsel for the appellants
\nsubmitted that the payment of the fees of M\/s. Tata Inc. was
\npayment for  rendering a service and could not be taken into
\naccount\t in  arriving  at  the\tvalue  of  the\tsaid  plant.
\nAttention was  drawn to the judgment of this Court in Apollo
\nTyres Ltd.  vs. Collector of Customs,<\/a> 1997 (89) E.L.T. 7 (to
\nwhich one  of us  was party)  where it\twas  held  that\t the
\ncommission or remuneration payable to a purchasing agent did
\nnot enhance  the value\tof the\titems  purchased.  The\tsame
\nreasoning, it  was submitted,  applied to  the fees  of M\/s.
\nTata Inc.  and the reimbursement to them of actual expenses.
\nLearned counsel\t for the  Revenue, Fairly,  did not  dispute
\nthis.\n<\/p>\n
     To summarise,  only the additions of US $ 33953, 217500
\nand 265018,  being  the\t additions  on\taccount\t of  “Vendor
\nInspection” (item  2),\t“Tata Incorporated charges” (item 5)
\nand “Reimbursement to Tata Incorporated ….. ” (item 6) are
\nnot sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     The letter\t dated 24th  August, 1982,  written  by\t the
\nAssistant Collector  of Customs to the appellants intimating
\nto them\t that the  said contract had been registered, stated
\nthat spares to the extent of 10 per cent of the value of the
\nmain machinery\twere eligible  for the\tconcessional rate of
\nassessment under  Item 84.66.  It goes\twithout saying\tthat
\nthis percentage\t must now  be calculated on the basis of the
\nenhanced value\tof the\tsaid plant.  Spares to\tthat  extent
\nwould from  part of the project import and must be valued on
\npar with  the said  plant, that\t is to\tsay that the rate of
\nexchange which\tis applied in respect of the said plant must
\nalso be applied to this percentage of the spares.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is  allowed  and  the\torder  under  appeal
\nmodified to  the extent aforestated. There shall be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 Author: Bharucha Bench: S.P. Bharucha, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/02\/1997 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/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-81994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - 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\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T22:14:51+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\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T22:14:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2048,\"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\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\",\"name\":\"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T22:14:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - 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\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T22:14:51+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\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T22:14:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997"},"wordCount":2048,"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\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997","name":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing ... vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T22:14:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-vs-collector-of-customs-bombay-on-18-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing … vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 18 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/81994","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=81994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}