<?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>1995 (4) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44122</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the consignor-exporter is liable for demurrage charges and incidental fees when goods are unlawfully detained in customs. Relying on precedent, the Court found that the consignor-exporter bears responsibility, similar to the importer-consignee. The lower courts&#039; decisions were overturned, and the suit against the consignor-exporter was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of charges and costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:29:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44122</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the consignor-exporter is liable for demurrage charges and incidental fees when goods are unlawfully detained in customs. Relying on precedent, the Court found that the consignor-exporter bears responsibility, similar to the importer-consignee. The lower courts&#039; decisions were overturned, and the suit against the consignor-exporter was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of charges and costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>