Customs duty refund requires a specific refund application under Section 27; implied claims in appeal are not enough.

A refund of customs duty is not maintainable unless the claimant files a specific refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the prescribed time-limit. A refund claim cannot be treated as implied merely from a memorandum of appeal, and where the original order has not adjudicated the countervailing duty issue, the appellate authority may insist on a speaking order from the original authority first. The impugned order therefore called for no interference, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund of customs duty could be claimed without filing a specific refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the appellate order calling for a speaking order from the original authority called for interference.

Analysis: Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it mandatory to file a specific refund application before the Assistant Collector within the prescribed time-limit for claiming refund of customs duty. No such application was filed, and the claim was only described as implied in the memorandum of appeal. The original order did not adjudicate the levy of countervailing duty, and the appellate authority was justified in requiring the appellants to first obtain a speaking order on that issue.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable in the absence of a proper refund application, and the impugned order required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the refund issue and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of customs duty cannot be entertained unless the claimant files a specific refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the prescribed time-limit.

---