Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter V — Levy of, and Exemption from, Customs Duties
Section 27. Claim of refund duty
Customs Act, 1962
Bare Act
Claim for refund of duty. —
(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest,-
(a) paid by him; or
(b) borne by him, may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest:
Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such application shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1), as it stood before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2):
Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest.
Provided also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded.
Explanation 1. — For the purposes of this sub-section,"the date of payment of duty or interest" in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as"the date of purchase of goods" by such person.
Explanation
2. ––For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the period of limitation of one year in case of claim of refund under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 18A or amendment of documents under section 149, shall be computed from the date of payment of such duty or interest.
(1A) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28C) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty or interest, in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty or interest, has not been passed on by him to any other person.
(1B) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitation of one year shall be computed in the following manner, namely-
(a) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of section 25, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of issue of such order;
(b) where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction;
(c) where any duty is paid provisionally under section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof or in case of re-assessment, from the date of such re-assessment.
(2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund:
Provided that the amount of 5 (duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to -
(a) the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the importer, or the exporter, as the case may be if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person;
(b) the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty on imports made by an individual for his personal use;
(c) the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty borne by the buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person;
(d) the export duty as specified in section 26;
(e) drawback of duty payable under sections 74 and 75;
(f) the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty borne by any other such class of applicants as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:
(g) the duty paid in excess by the importer before an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is made where-
(i) such excess payment of duty is evident from the bill of entry in the case of self-assessed bill of entry; or
(ii) the duty actually payable is reflected in the reassessed bill of entry in the case of reassessment.
Provided further that no notification under clause (f) of the first proviso shall be issued unless in the opinion of the Central Government the incidence of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the regulations made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2).
(4) Every notification under clause (f) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament, if it is sitting, as soon as may be after the issue of the notification, and, if it is not sitting, within seven days of its re-assembly, and the Central Government shall seek the approval of Parliament to the notification by a resolution moved within a period of fifteen days beginning with the day on which the notification is so laid before the House of the People and if Parliament makes any modification in the notification or directs that the notification should cease to have effect, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. 5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any notification issued under clause (f) of the first proviso to sub-section (2), including any such notification approved or modified under sub-section (4), may be rescinded by the Central Government at any time by notification in the Official Gazette.
Judgments on Section 27
- Jsw Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Where excess export duty was never part of any assessment and comes to light only upon a subsequent reassessment, limitation for refund under Section 27(1B)(c) runs from the date of that reassessment, not from the…
- Jaina Marketing And Associates vs Union Of India And Ors — Delhi High Court, 30 Mar 2026. Where duty that was never payable is refunded after prolonged departmental delay in re-assessment and refund, interest at the statutory rate is payable from the date of the importer's first re-assessment application to…
- M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) Appellant(S) Versus Union Of India vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2025. Encashment of a bank guarantee furnished merely as security pursuant to a court's interim order cannot be treated as duty 'paid' under Section 27 of the Customs Act, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply…
- Yash Pakka Limited vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 14 Feb 2024. Under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, a shipping bill may be amended or converted even after export if supported by documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, and a circular's self-imposed time limit…
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 24 Jan 2023. A self-assessment recorded in a bill of entry is itself an appealable order under Section 128, and no refund can be claimed or entertained under Section 27 until that self-assessment is modified in accordance with law,…
- M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
- Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 1 Apr 2022. A show cause notice for recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act can be issued only by the 'proper officer', and notices issued by the DRI are without authority and liable to be quashed per M/s Canon India,…
- J.M.Baxi And Co vs Government Of India — Madras High Court, 4 Dec 2019. A steamer or its agent cannot be held liable under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely because remission of customs duty was allowed to the importer under Section 23, and invocation of Section 116 long after 9…
- M/S Jairath International And Another vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 4 Oct 2019. The customs department has no power under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 or the Valuation Rules, 2007 to re-assess a shipping bill duly assessed at the time of export, because goods already exported are not 'export…
- Itc Ltd vs Cce, Kolkata Iv — Supreme Court of India, 18 Sep 2019. A refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is first modified in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings, because refund…
- Micromax Informatics Limited vs The Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 30 Nov 2018. After the Finance Act, 2011 amendments, a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act is maintainable on proof that the duty was paid or borne by the claimant, without any need to first challenge or get the…
- Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 26 Jul 2017. Once an importer's CA certificate and supporting invoices establish that the incidence of CVD was not passed on to customers, unjust enrichment under Section 28D read with Section 27 is not invokable, and refund cannot…
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. Nothing can be collected or retained under a taxing Act beyond what the charging section read with the machinery provisions authorises; amounts collected in excess are not duty at all, and their retention offends…
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad Etc. Etc.. Vs. vs Union Of India Etc. Etc — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. A claimant for refund of duty paid under mistake of law who has passed on the burden to the consumer and suffered no loss or injury cannot maintain an action for restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, and the…
- Vvd And Sons Pct Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cce & Gst-Commissioner… — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Where duty is paid under protest and a refund application is filed contemporaneously with such payment, interest runs from the date immediately following three months from that application, because a dispute purely over…
- Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise vs M/S Oil India Limited — Gauhati High Court, 27 Aug 2026. Refund-limitation provisions like Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (and, by analogy, Section 27 of the Customs Act) apply only to 'duty'—amounts paid under a mistake of law or collected without authority of law…
- Manyata Promoters Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 30 Jul 2026. Where no 'Out of Charge' order under Section 47(1) is passed and the amount paid is never appropriated towards any duty demand, the payment retains the character of a deposit rather than duty and is refundable, since…
- Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd And Anr Thro. Its Director Shri Ashwin Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Customs — Bombay High Court, 16 Apr 2026. A refund-sanctioning order that grants the principal refund but is silent and gives no reasons on the claim for accrued interest is passed without application of mind and is unsustainable, entitling the claimant to a…
- The Commissioner Of Customs… vs Chaudhary Ship Breakers — Gujarat High Court, 17 Sep 2025. Where excess customs duty is paid on a quantity of goods that never existed and no sale of such goods was possible, the question of passing on the duty incidence does not arise, so the refund cannot be denied to the…
- M.K. Agrotech Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) — Karnataka High Court, 28 Apr 2025. Adhoc 1% handling charges are chargeable to customs duty where the actual charges are not ascertainable, and a Section 27 refund claim must be examined against an unchallenged assessment and the Mafatlal/Wipro…