Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)Board Of Trustee Of The Port Of Bombay vs Indian Goods Supplying Co on 21 March, 1977
16. The Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. I.G. Supplying Co. , has held that even though the delay in clearing the goods was not due to negligence of the importer for which he could be held responsible, yet he cannot avoid the payment of demurrage as the rates imposed are under the authority of law, the validity of which cannot be questioned.
International Airports Authority Of ... vs M/S Grand Slam International & Om Etc. ... on 21 February, 1995
The Apex Court has reiterated the above proposition of law in the later decisions in the case of International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 and in the case of Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi & Co., 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the delay in clearance of the goods cannot be attributed to the Customs Department and the petitioner cannot be absolved of their obligation to pay the demurrage charges payable on the goods imported by the petitioner.
Trustees Of Port Of Madras vs Nagavedu Lungi And Company And Ors on 21 April, 1995
The Apex Court has reiterated the above proposition of law in the later decisions in the case of International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 and in the case of Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi & Co., 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the delay in clearance of the goods cannot be attributed to the Customs Department and the petitioner cannot be absolved of their obligation to pay the demurrage charges payable on the goods imported by the petitioner.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 155 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Shipping Corpn. Of India Ltd vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills & Ors on 10 April, 2001
17. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has rightly contended that the case in C.L. Jain Woolen Mills (supra) was decided in the peculiar facts of that particular case. The ratio of that judgment cannot be extended to the facts of the present petition.
The Customs Act, 1962
1