Refund of customs duty on re-export denied; drawback is the proper remedy for wrongly shipped imported goods.

Customs duty paid on imported goods later re-exported as wrongly shipped goods was not refundable merely because the buyer and seller agreed to return them. The claim was not based on excess or mistaken payment of duty, and the clearance had been made without protest. The proper statutory remedy for re-export was drawback under the Customs Act, 1962, not refund from the department. The importer was therefore not entitled to refund, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether customs duty paid on imported goods, which were later re-exported on the ground of wrong shipment, was refundable or whether the importer's remedy was confined to drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared on payment of duty without protest. The claim for refund was not founded on excess or mistaken payment of duty, but on the subsequent assertion that the goods supplied did not match the order and were re-exported after the seller's consent. The return of goods to the foreign seller, being a transaction between buyer and seller, did not by itself create a right to refund of customs duty from the department. The proper statutory route for recovery on re-export was drawback, not refund.

Conclusion: The importer was not entitled to refund of customs duty on re-export of the goods, and the appeal was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy on re-export was held to be drawback under the Customs Act, and the refund claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs duty law does not permit refund merely because imported goods are later re-exported as wrongly shipped goods; the appropriate remedy is drawback where provided by statute.

---