https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167524 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. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:21:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167524 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167524