<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (9) TMI 170 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167289</link>
    <description>A statutory port authority empowered to frame a scale of rates and conditions for services may levy demurrage-like charges to secure prompt cargo clearance and prevent congestion, and such a scale is not ultra vires merely because it differs from the strict mercantile meaning of demurrage or classifies detention categories differently. The demand was upheld in principle as neither unreasonable nor beyond the statute. However, liability for recovery was not established on the record against the respondents, because the detention certificate did not create legal liability and the evidence did not prove that the first respondent, as an intermediary without shown title or beneficial interest, was the proper party to bear the charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2019 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 170 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167289</link>
      <description>A statutory port authority empowered to frame a scale of rates and conditions for services may levy demurrage-like charges to secure prompt cargo clearance and prevent congestion, and such a scale is not ultra vires merely because it differs from the strict mercantile meaning of demurrage or classifies detention categories differently. The demand was upheld in principle as neither unreasonable nor beyond the statute. However, liability for recovery was not established on the record against the respondents, because the detention certificate did not create legal liability and the evidence did not prove that the first respondent, as an intermediary without shown title or beneficial interest, was the proper party to bear the charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>