https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42713 A holder of a letter of authority acting for a licence-holder was held not to be an "owner" or consignee liable for port demurrage under the statutory definition, even if the person financed the import or handled shipping documents. The claim for demurrage was treated as within limitation because the cause of action arose when the amount became ascertainable in the detention and confiscation proceedings, and correspondence showed acknowledgments and requests for time. The port authority's entitlement to demurrage up to confiscation was recognised, but waiver, abandonment, estoppel and forfeiture were rejected for lack of pleadings and proof. The suit for recovery was dismissed because liability against the defendants was not established. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:11:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42713 A holder of a letter of authority acting for a licence-holder was held not to be an "owner" or consignee liable for port demurrage under the statutory definition, even if the person financed the import or handled shipping documents. The claim for demurrage was treated as within limitation because the cause of action arose when the amount became ascertainable in the detention and confiscation proceedings, and correspondence showed acknowledgments and requests for time. The port authority's entitlement to demurrage up to confiscation was recognised, but waiver, abandonment, estoppel and forfeiture were rejected for lack of pleadings and proof. The suit for recovery was dismissed because liability against the defendants was not established. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42713