{"id":92119,"date":"1983-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983"},"modified":"2016-08-11T02:07:53","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T20:37:53","slug":"fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","title":{"rendered":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 (31) ELT 448 Tri Del<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 G. Sankaran, Member (T)<\/p>\n
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as revision applications before the Central Government and have come a- transferred proceedings, in terms of Section 1315(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The   issue   involved   in   these   three   appeals  is  common   and   this common order disposes of all the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The   issue   is   whether   the   chemical-GLYOXAL   40%-imported by   the   appellants   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   FAIRDEAL)   was   eligible for exemption from  additional duty  of customs with reference to Central Excise   Notification   No.  55\/75,  dated   1-3-1975   as  a  “drug   intermediate” falling  under  Item   No.   68  of  the  Central  Excise  Tariff  Schedule  (CET).\n<\/p>\n
4.     The lower authorities held that the chemical was a raw material for the  manufacture of  a drug  intermediate,  namely,  2-Methyl  Imidazole. It   was   a   versatile   chemical   having   multifarious   uses.   Since   it   was   not exclusively   or  even  predominantly  used   in   the   manufacture   of   drugs,  it was  not  entitled   to  exemption  as  a “drug  intermediate” in terms of  the notification referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The   appeal   was   heard   on    18-11-1983.   Shri   Rajadhyaksha,   the learned Counsel, for FAIRDEAL made the following submissions :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Glyoxal 40% is used by FAIRDEAL for manufacture of Metro-nidazole I.P., a drug for which they hold a licence from the Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State. The process could be briefly summed up thus:-\n<\/p>\n
Glyoxal   40%  –  2-Methyl   Imidazole  –   Metronidazole   I.P.-   The licence covers also the manufacture of 2-Methyl Imidazole.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Glyoxal 40% which is used in the manufacture of the drug Metronidazole is a “drug intermediate” within the meaning of Notification No. 55\/75-CE.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The predominant use of Glyoxal 40% is in the manufacture of Metronidazole I.P. This has been acknowledged by the very same Appellate Collector (whose orders are under challenge before us) who, in a later order dated 15-12-1980 on three appeals filed by the same appellants (FAIRDEAL) held, after study of the voluminous data placed before him by FAIRDEAL, that the principal use of Glyoxal 40% is as raw material in the manufacture of drugs. In view of this principal use, the Appellate Collector concluded in that order that Glyoxal is a drug intermediate falling within the scope of Notification No. 55\/75-CE.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Glyoxal 40% manufactured indigenously by M\/s. Rajasthan Glyoxal Ltd. was being assessed to ‘Nil’ duty in terms of Notification No. 55\/75-CE by the concerned excise authorities, as may be seen from the photostat copy of the relevant classification list submitted as evidence (Pages 45 to 49 of the Paper Book in Appeal No. 689\/1980-C).\n<\/p>\n
6.     Appearing on behalf  of  the  respondent   Shri  A.K.  Jain submitted that :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)      the   word   “intermediate1”   has   not   been   defined   in   the   relevant notification.  It  is,  therefore,  useful to turn to a standard book –   like   Hawley’s   Condensed   Dictionary   which   has   this   to   say   :-\n<\/p>\n
 “an organic compound, either cyclic (derived “from coal tar or petroleum products such as benzene, toluene, naphthalene, etc.) or acyclic (e.g., ethyl and methyl alcohol). These compounds may be considered as chemical stepping stones between the parent substance and the final product. The cyclic type (e.g., aniline, beta-naphthol, and benzoyl-benzoic acid) still predominate as intermediates for synthetic dyes and have few other uses; the acyclic type in general have many independent uses. Exceptions are hexamethylenetetramine, an acyclic intermediate for phenol-formaldehyde resin, and butadiene for synthetic elastomers. Intermediates are the foundation of the modern approach to organic technology. The distinction between an intermediate and an end product is not always precise.”\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The same Dictionary gives the following information: On the uses of Glyoxal:-\n<\/p>\n
“Grades: 40% solution; pure, solid; V.P. Uses: Permanent-press fabrics; dimensional stabilization of rayon and other fibres. In-solubilizing agent for compounds containing polyhydroxyl groups (polyvinyl alcohol, starch, and cellulosic materials); insolubilizing of proteins (casein, gelatin and animal glue); embalming fluids; leather tanning: paper coatings with hydroxyethylcellulose; reducing agent in dyeing textiles.\n<\/p>\n
There is no reference to its use as a drug intermediate. Hence, even if such use is there, it cannot be said to be its predominant use.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) On the concept of predominant use, reference may be made to the Tribunal’s decision in M\/s. Sirpur Mills case reported in 1983 ECR 1179-D.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) 2-Methyl Imidazole which FAIRDEAL produces from Glyoxal 40% is a drug intermediate. Hence Glyoxal 4096 can only be a chemical used as a starting material and cannot be deemed to be a drug intermediate by itself. In this context, reference was made to a book published by Small Business Publications, Delhi, in their Chemical Engineering Series No. 43 entitled “Fine Chemicals, Drugs, Pharmaceuticals”. In this book Imidazole but not Glyoxal 40% stood identified as a drug intermediate.\n<\/p>\n
7. In reply, Shri Rajadhyaksha contended that there was no warrant to say that a “drug intermediate” to be so called should directly result in production of a drug when processed.\n<\/p>\n
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We must take note of the fact that the Appellate Collector has recorded, in his order dated 15-12-1980 (though in relation to some other appeal but of the same appellants), after study of voluminous data placed before him, that the principal use of Glyoxal 40% is as raw material in the manufacture of drugs. This finding has not been rebutted by the Department before us nor has the Deptt. produced any evidence of their own in this regard. We shall, therefore, proceed on the basis that the principal use in India of Glyoxal 40% is as a raw material in the manufacture of drugs.\n<\/p>\n
8a. The relevance of the SDR’s reference to the Tribunal’s decision in 1983 ECR 1179-D is not clear. In that case, the trade opinion and predominant use supported the appellants’ claimed classification under Item 17(3) GET as unspecified varieties of printing and writing papers. The Tribunal accepted the appellants’ claim. We fail to see the relevance of this decision to the matter before us.\n<\/p>\n
9.     We cannot also fail to take note of the fact that Rajasthan Central Excise authorities are considering Glyoxal 40% as entitled to the benefit of  Notification  No.  55\/75-CE  Serial  No.   19  thereof:  “Drugs,  medicines, Pharmaceuticals  and  drug intermediates”.  Confronted with this,  the SDR could  only   say,  and  rightly  so,  that  there  was  no  estoppel  in  taxation matters.  But  then,  it  has  to be  established  that  the  said classification was erreneous.\n<\/p>\n
10.   The  basic  issue  herein  is  what  is  an  “intermediate”. Shri  Jain has referred to the meaning of the said expression as given in Hawley’s Condensed   Chemical   Dictionary  (10th   edition-page   565).   According   to this dictionary, “Intermediates are organic compounds which may be considered as chemical stepping stones between the parent substance and the final  product.  “…  The distinction between an  intermediate and an end product is not always precise.”\n<\/p>\n
11.   The rather vague, imprecise meaning of “intermediate” is brought out by  reference  to what  three  other  authorities have  to  say  on it :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Organic product to be subjected to further chemical treatment to produce finished product such as dyes and Pharmaceuticals. [Page 580 of Concise Chemical & Technical Dictionary (HI edition) by H. Bennett.]<\/p>\n
(ii) “Intermediate” (Chem.)-“A precursor to a desired product, ethylene is an intermediate for polyethylene, and ethane is an intermediate for ethylene.”\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Page 829-830 McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms II Edition).\n<\/p>\n
(iii) “Intermediate” (Chem.)-“A general term for any chemical compound which is manufactured from a substance obtained from raw materials, and which serves as a starting material for the synthesis of another product.”\n<\/p>\n
Page 624-Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology Revised Edition.\n<\/p>\n
12.   The use of Glyoxal 40% in the manufacture of 2-Methyl Imidazole and ultimately of Metronidazole I.P. has not been disputed. Having regard to the several definitions of the expression “intermediate” which we have extracted above, we do” not see any reason why the benefit of Notification No. 55\/75-CE should not be extended in the instant cases.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Accordingly,   we   allow   the   three  appeals  and  direct  that  consequential   relief   shall   be   granted  by  the  concerned  customs  authorities to  the appellants  within  three  months from  the  date  of  communication of this order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1987 (31) ELT 448 Tri Del ORDER G. Sankaran, Member (T) 1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as revision applications before the Central Government and have come a- transferred proceedings, in terms of […]<\/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":[41,33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-customs-excise-and-gold-tribunal-delhi","category-tribunal"],"yoast_head":"\nFairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - 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\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T20:37:53+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T20:37:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\"},\"wordCount\":1371,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi\",\"Tribunal\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\",\"name\":\"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T20:37:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - 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\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T20:37:53+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983","datePublished":"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T20:37:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983"},"wordCount":1371,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi","Tribunal"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983","name":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T20:37:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fairdeal-corporation-pvt-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-1-november-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 1 November, 1983"}]},{"@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\/92119","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=92119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}