https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96204 Refund of customs duty was held maintainable where the required exemption bond was produced after clearance and the shortfall was later cured by additional bank guarantee, because pre-clearance execution was not treated as an absolute bar once duty had been paid and substantive exemption conditions were met. The exemption objection was therefore rejected and the importer was entitled to seek refund. The actual disbursement of refund, however, remained subject to the statutory unjust-enrichment test under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, requiring a factual finding on whether the duty incidence had been passed on, failing which the amount could be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. en-us Sat, 19 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:43:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96204 Refund of customs duty was held maintainable where the required exemption bond was produced after clearance and the shortfall was later cured by additional bank guarantee, because pre-clearance execution was not treated as an absolute bar once duty had been paid and substantive exemption conditions were met. The exemption objection was therefore rejected and the importer was entitled to seek refund. The actual disbursement of refund, however, remained subject to the statutory unjust-enrichment test under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, requiring a factual finding on whether the duty incidence had been passed on, failing which the amount could be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 19 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96204