https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792248 A custodian operating a Container Freight Station was required to bear cost recovery charges for customs officers deployed under the customs regime, because the governing 2009 regulations and the applicable public notice imposed that obligation and no specific exemption was shown. The challenge that the posts were not formally sanctioned failed where customs supervision and deployment had in fact occurred, and later departmental absorption of the posts did not extinguish the liability. The Court also treated the dispute as barred by estoppel, acquiescence and res judicata in light of earlier proceedings, and upheld the consequential restriction on cargo movement imposed for persistent default. en-us Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792248 A custodian operating a Container Freight Station was required to bear cost recovery charges for customs officers deployed under the customs regime, because the governing 2009 regulations and the applicable public notice imposed that obligation and no specific exemption was shown. The challenge that the posts were not formally sanctioned failed where customs supervision and deployment had in fact occurred, and later departmental absorption of the posts did not extinguish the liability. The Court also treated the dispute as barred by estoppel, acquiescence and res judicata in light of earlier proceedings, and upheld the consequential restriction on cargo movement imposed for persistent default. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792248