Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, ADVAIT M. SETHNA
Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent and at the request of the parties. In any event, by order dated 14 October 2025, the matter had been directed to be listed for final disposal at the admission stage on 11 November 2025.
THE CHALLENGE
3. The Petitioner has impugned the communication dated 28 December 2022 bearing reference No. F.No. CUS/RFD/OTH/141/2022/REF-O/o COMMR-CUS-IMP-II- ZONE-I and DIN 2022127800000000A259, issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the Petitioner’s claim for refund of customs duty amounting to Rs. 35,37,358/- was rejected/disposed of. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to refund the aforesaid amount along with applicable interest, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13, 23 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The challenge arises in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances set out hereinbelow.
4. This is an unfortunate case where the Petitioner, despite having duly complied with all statutory obligations and paid the necessary customs duty, is forced to approach this Court
Importers are entitled to a refund of customs duty paid for goods not received, irrespective of inter-departmental disputes, as established under Sections 13, 23, and 27A of the Customs Act.
Since the provisions of section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and th....
The court determined that the payment of customs duty by the petitioner was voluntary, not under protest, thereby denying the refund claim due to failure to prove unjust enrichment.
The importer must comply with customs regulations, including filing a Bill of Entry; failure to do so can lead to auction of goods and liability for associated charges.
The court ruled that entitlement to interest on refund under the Customs Act requires proper application in statutory form, with interest only applicable post-crystalization of the refund amount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the analysis of Section 28D in the context of a claim for refund of duty. The court's ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
