<?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>2021 (8) TMI 617 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411039</link>
    <description>Executive directions issued during the COVID-19 lockdown could not compel CFSs, ICDs or shipping lines to waive detention, demurrage, ground rent or allied charges where those liabilities arose from private commercial arrangements. The Disaster Management Act, customs law, port legislation and the Merchant Shipping Act were described as limited to their statutory fields and not as sources of a general power to override legitimate private contracts. The commentary also notes that policy relief in the pandemic context would not be struck down absent patent arbitrariness or discrimination, though shipping-line advisories were said not to be binding against contractual rights. The connected writ petitions were therefore substantially dismissed, with only limited relief for shipping lines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 617 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411039</link>
      <description>Executive directions issued during the COVID-19 lockdown could not compel CFSs, ICDs or shipping lines to waive detention, demurrage, ground rent or allied charges where those liabilities arose from private commercial arrangements. The Disaster Management Act, customs law, port legislation and the Merchant Shipping Act were described as limited to their statutory fields and not as sources of a general power to override legitimate private contracts. The commentary also notes that policy relief in the pandemic context would not be struck down absent patent arbitrariness or discrimination, though shipping-line advisories were said not to be binding against contractual rights. The connected writ petitions were therefore substantially dismissed, with only limited relief for shipping lines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>