https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95297 Warehoused goods left uncleared beyond the normal and extended bonding period attracted interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, because the importers knew that interest would arise if clearance was delayed yet continued seeking extension. A waiver request did not justify interference with the demand where the matter had already been referred to and denied by the Board, and the remand plea that the Chief Commissioner should have decided the waiver was rejected. The stated delegation under Notification No. 59/93-(N.T.) Cus. did not alter the result, and the demand for interest was upheld. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:39:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95297 Warehoused goods left uncleared beyond the normal and extended bonding period attracted interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, because the importers knew that interest would arise if clearance was delayed yet continued seeking extension. A waiver request did not justify interference with the demand where the matter had already been referred to and denied by the Board, and the remand plea that the Chief Commissioner should have decided the waiver was rejected. The stated delegation under Notification No. 59/93-(N.T.) Cus. did not alter the result, and the demand for interest was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95297