<?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>2011 (9) TMI 991 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175210</link>
    <description>The governing port tariff scheme limited storage charge or ground rent on abandoned FCL containers to a maximum period of 75 days, and the Port Trust could not continue levying rent beyond that limit by keeping containers undestuffed. The statutory framework under the Major Port Trusts Act and the tariff orders controlled the rate and duration of liability, while the provisions on custody, lien, sale of goods and priority of claims indicated that the proper course was to proceed against uncleared cargo in the manner prescribed by law. A refusal to destuff for want of space did not justify indefinite recovery. Excess ground rent already collected was therefore required to be recomputed and refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:02:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 991 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175210</link>
      <description>The governing port tariff scheme limited storage charge or ground rent on abandoned FCL containers to a maximum period of 75 days, and the Port Trust could not continue levying rent beyond that limit by keeping containers undestuffed. The statutory framework under the Major Port Trusts Act and the tariff orders controlled the rate and duration of liability, while the provisions on custody, lien, sale of goods and priority of claims indicated that the proper course was to proceed against uncleared cargo in the manner prescribed by law. A refusal to destuff for want of space did not justify indefinite recovery. Excess ground rent already collected was therefore required to be recomputed and refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>