https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214878 The impugned goods were confiscated due to misbranding and adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, with permission for re-export upon payment of fines. The appeal for waiving demurrage and detention charges was denied, citing Supreme Court precedent holding importers liable. Arguments invoking customs regulations and the Customs Act were rejected, affirming the importer's responsibility for charges. The Tribunal urged prompt action to avoid additional costs, ultimately dismissing all appeals and emphasizing the appellants' duty to expedite the process. en-us Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214878 The impugned goods were confiscated due to misbranding and adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, with permission for re-export upon payment of fines. The appeal for waiving demurrage and detention charges was denied, citing Supreme Court precedent holding importers liable. Arguments invoking customs regulations and the Customs Act were rejected, affirming the importer's responsibility for charges. The Tribunal urged prompt action to avoid additional costs, ultimately dismissing all appeals and emphasizing the appellants' duty to expedite the process. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214878