Short-landing refund claims require custodian certificate and supporting proof; assertions alone are insufficient.

Refund of duty for alleged short-landing required proof that the duty-paid goods had not actually landed, and the custodian's short-landing certificate was the primary evidence for that purpose. Mere duty bills and the assertion that the goods were over-carried and later brought back were insufficient without the essential supporting certificate and documentary proof. As the appellant failed to produce the promised certificate even after considerable delay, the refund claim remained unsubstantiated and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of duty on the alleged short-landing of goods despite failure to produce the short-landing certificate and other supporting evidence.

Analysis: The claim for refund required proof that the goods in respect of which duty had been paid had not actually landed. The primary evidence for establishing short-landing was the certificate issued by the custodian of the goods. The appellant had undertaken to produce that certificate but did not do so even after a considerable lapse of time. Mere reliance on duty bills and the assertion that the goods were over-carried and later brought back was held insufficient in the absence of the essential documentary proof.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not substantiated and the appeal was rejected.

---