Pilferage-based customs refund turns on proof that goods remained uncleared, not on early citation of the exact provision.

Imported goods shown by the record to have remained uncleared satisfied the statutory condition for pilferage-based refund under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, so customs duty was refundable. The documentary evidence, including the bill of entry cash copy, was sufficient to establish non-clearance, and the later carrier letter was treated as unnecessary to the result. A refund claim was not defeated by the omission to mention Section 13 at the earlier stage or by the subsequent production of supporting evidence. The departmental objection was rejected and the duty refund was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of customs duty was admissible under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the footing that the imported goods were pilfered and not cleared, and whether the claim was vitiated by the absence of an initial specific reference to Section 13 or by the subsequent production of supporting evidence.

Analysis: The documentary record, including the bill of entry cash copy, was found sufficient to show that the goods had not been cleared and that the statutory condition for refund under Section 13 was satisfied. The later letter from the carrier was treated as unnecessary to the conclusion. The omission to specify at the earlier stage whether the claim was under Section 13 or Section 23 was held not to invalidate an otherwise proper claim.

Conclusion: Refund of the customs duty was held to be admissible and the departmental objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the appellants were held entitled to refund of the duty paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are shown by the record to have remained uncleared and the statutory conditions for pilferage-based refund are met, a refund claim is not defeated by a mere omission to cite the precise provision at an earlier stage.

---