Customs refund jurisdiction and limitation for lighthouse charges upheld under the collection and refund scheme

Customs authorities were treated as competent to consider refund of lighthouse charges because the statutory scheme made the Customs Collector the proper officer for collection, receipt and recovery of those dues, and refund of excess payment was incidental to that mechanism. The absence of an express reference to the proper officer in the refund provision did not create a jurisdictional gap. The refund claim was also filed beyond the prescribed six-month period for excess-payment refunds, so rejection on limitation was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities had jurisdiction to entertain and reject the claim for refund of lighthouse charges, and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Customs Collector as the proper officer for collection, receipt, and recovery of lighthouse dues. Refund of excess payment was held to be incidental to that collection and recovery mechanism, so the absence of an express reference to the proper officer in the refund provision did not create any jurisdictional vacuum. The claim was also admittedly filed beyond the six-month period prescribed for refund of excess payment.

Conclusion: The customs authorities were competent to decide the refund application, and the rejection of the claim as time-barred was ; the appellant's challenge failed.

---