As per case facts, the Petitioner, an SEZ developer, procured duty-exempt goods for authorized operations. After several extensions for utilization, the Petitioner sought permission to dispose of some unutilized or ... defective items. The Union Approval Committee, however, directed the Petitioner to refund the applicable duties on these leftover goods as per Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules, rather than allowing their destruction under Rule 27(9). The Petitioner deposited the amounts under protest and filed a writ petition challenging this levy of customs duty and seeking a refund. The question arose whether goods that became defective or damaged due to non-utilization within the stipulated period should fall under Rule 27(9) which allows destruction without duty for defective goods, or Rule 25 which requires a refund of exemptions for unutilized goods. Finally, the High Court determined that Rule 27(9) applies to goods found defective or unfit upon receipt or during use, whereas Rule 25 applies to goods that became defective or damaged due to non-utilization within the approved period, thereby necessitating a refund of the benefits availed. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the demand for refund and consequently dismissed the writ petition.