<?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>1987 (2) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41874</link>
    <description>A port authority cannot withhold refund of excess wharf rent on one consignment by setting off alleged dues arising from other consignments or unrelated transactions with the clearing agent. The statutory lien under the Major Port Trusts Act extends only to the goods and charges due for those very goods, so extraneous liabilities cannot be adjusted against the refund. The consignee/importer, as owner within the Act&#039;s inclusive definition, had locus standi to claim refund of excess rent paid for its own goods, and the clearing agent&#039;s involvement did not defeat that entitlement. The refund order was upheld, leaving separate recovery remedies open for lawful dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41874</link>
      <description>A port authority cannot withhold refund of excess wharf rent on one consignment by setting off alleged dues arising from other consignments or unrelated transactions with the clearing agent. The statutory lien under the Major Port Trusts Act extends only to the goods and charges due for those very goods, so extraneous liabilities cannot be adjusted against the refund. The consignee/importer, as owner within the Act&#039;s inclusive definition, had locus standi to claim refund of excess rent paid for its own goods, and the clearing agent&#039;s involvement did not defeat that entitlement. The refund order was upheld, leaving separate recovery remedies open for lawful dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>