Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Decided
4 January 2000
Judges listed
B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 26 · 2000 INSC 3
Also cited as
  • (2000) 1 SCC 565 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that redemption fine could not be imposed because the goods were no loger in the custody of the respondent-authority. It is an admitted fact that the goods were released to the appellant an application made by it and on the appellant executing a bond. Under these circumstance& if substquently it is found that the import was not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the said goods, then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine.

p. 26, margin E

The appeal is dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 26, margin G