https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393919 Customs clearance disputes over de-stuffing, storage and disposal of imported cargo, and over detention and ground rent, could not be resolved in writ proceedings where the consignee had filed bills of entry and the core dispute on title and liability remained unsettled. The HC noted the Customs Act definition of importer, but held that the contractual allocation of risk and charges, and any arbitral remedy, were the proper avenues for deciding who was ultimately liable. It also observed that the governing principles had been referred to a larger Bench, so the Court would not rework the contract or grant the requested mandamus and ancillary reliefs. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393919 Customs clearance disputes over de-stuffing, storage and disposal of imported cargo, and over detention and ground rent, could not be resolved in writ proceedings where the consignee had filed bills of entry and the core dispute on title and liability remained unsettled. The HC noted the Customs Act definition of importer, but held that the contractual allocation of risk and charges, and any arbitral remedy, were the proper avenues for deciding who was ultimately liable. It also observed that the governing principles had been referred to a larger Bench, so the Court would not rework the contract or grant the requested mandamus and ancillary reliefs. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393919