Duty paid under protest preserves refund rights; technical endorsement lapses under protest procedure do not defeat the claim.

Duty paid under protest was held sufficient to preserve the refund claim from the ordinary limitation period where a formal protest letter, endorsed gate passes, and the surrounding valuation dispute showed continuing protest despite approval of the price list. Non-endorsement of the R.T. 12 returns under Rule 233B was treated as a technical lapse, not a bar to refund, because the essential protest was otherwise evidenced and substantial compliance was shown. The order rejecting refund was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty on the disputed clearances was paid under protest so as to attract the proviso to the refund limitation provision; (ii) whether non-endorsement of the R.T. 12 returns in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B barred the refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether the duty on the disputed clearances was paid under protest so as to attract the proviso to the refund limitation provision.

Analysis: A formal protest letter had been filed in connection with the valuation dispute, the gate passes were endorsed as duty paid under protest, and the circumstances showed that the protest survived even though the price list had been approved. The rule permitting payment under protest after approval of the price list was treated as a valid procedural route, and the protest was held to save the refund claim from the ordinary time limit.

Conclusion: Duty was held to have been paid under protest.

Issue (ii): Whether non-endorsement of the R.T. 12 returns in the manner prescribed by Rule 233B barred the refund claim.

Analysis: The omission to mark the R.T. 12 returns was treated as a technical procedural lapse because the gate passes had been endorsed and were available with the returns. On that footing, the prescribed endorsements were held to be directory rather than mandatory, and substantial compliance with the protest procedure was accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by the procedural lapse.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund claim was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision on the merits of the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is in fact paid under protest and the essential protest is evidenced by contemporaneous documents, a technical omission in endorsement formalities under the protest procedure does not defeat the refund claim; such formal requirements are directory when substantial compliance is shown.

---