https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253885 Further demurrage could not be fastened on the petitioners once the Port Authority had no lawful basis to retain the goods, and continued detention after the customs obstruction had ceased was treated as attributable to the Authority. Demurrage was therefore confined to the permitted two-month period from 12 February 1996, while the remaining claim was rejected. The petitioners were also directed to pay the admitted de-stuffing charges, together with demurrage for the limited period and the proportionate interest linked to the principal deposit. The governing principle stated was that demurrage cannot accrue indefinitely against a container owner beyond the period during which the port may lawfully retain the goods. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253885 Further demurrage could not be fastened on the petitioners once the Port Authority had no lawful basis to retain the goods, and continued detention after the customs obstruction had ceased was treated as attributable to the Authority. Demurrage was therefore confined to the permitted two-month period from 12 February 1996, while the remaining claim was rejected. The petitioners were also directed to pay the admitted de-stuffing charges, together with demurrage for the limited period and the proportionate interest linked to the principal deposit. The governing principle stated was that demurrage cannot accrue indefinitely against a container owner beyond the period during which the port may lawfully retain the goods. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253885