TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Considering the fact that that the impugned consignments are pending clearance, we allow all the MISC applications for early hearing and take up the appeals for hearing today itself. 2. We find that the adjudicating authority has confiscated the impugned goods for the contraventions of misbranding and adulteration under the Prevent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) ELT 753 (SC) 2) Trustees of Port of Madras Vs Nagavedu Lungi & Co. 1995 (80) ELT 241 (SC) 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the demurrage and detention charges should be waived under Regulation 6 (1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. We find that this contention has been duly examined by the lower appellate authority and rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods. Against such order of redemption and order of re-export, appellants have no grievance nor they have filed any appeal. Hence, the goods vesting with the government does not arise when the appellants are seeking to redeem and reexport the impugned goods. In any case, Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not require the customs authorities to pay for demurrage and detention charges whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present case, the detention of the impugned goods were not on genuine reasons as the same had contravened the law of the land. As such, the lower appellate authority has rightly held that the customs authorities cannot be asked to pay demurrage and detention charges. We further find that the impugned order to redeem and reexport the goods was issued on 3.10.2001 by the original authority in resp....