<?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>1998 (5) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44911</link>
    <description>Whether Customs could be directed to issue a detention certificate and bear demurrage and container detention charges despite claimed duty-free release under valid pass-books turned on the inordinate delay in clearance. SC held that the HC&#039;s directions were justified in the special facts, particularly Customs&#039; failure to release the goods for about six years even after its own Chief Commissioner ordered unconditional release, and the ongoing departmental inquiry into officers responsible for the delay; the order was confined to doing justice on these circumstances and not a precedent. Consequently, the HC direction stood for the period prior to 5-4-1997, while any delay in delivery thereafter would be borne by the importer; the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44911</link>
      <description>Whether Customs could be directed to issue a detention certificate and bear demurrage and container detention charges despite claimed duty-free release under valid pass-books turned on the inordinate delay in clearance. SC held that the HC&#039;s directions were justified in the special facts, particularly Customs&#039; failure to release the goods for about six years even after its own Chief Commissioner ordered unconditional release, and the ongoing departmental inquiry into officers responsible for the delay; the order was confined to doing justice on these circumstances and not a precedent. Consequently, the HC direction stood for the period prior to 5-4-1997, while any delay in delivery thereafter would be borne by the importer; the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>