Madras High Court

Madras HC: Virbac Loses Bid for Shrimp Feed Duty Refund

Updated
Mar 13, 2026 11:25 AM
madras-hc-virbac-loses-bid-for-shrimp-feed-duty-refund

Virbac Animal Health India Pvt. Ltd. took on the Union of India over a big customs duty refund. Unfortunately for Virbac, the court decided against them on February 25, 2026. Let’s break down what happened.

The Case Begins: Virbac vs. Union of India

Virbac Animal Health India, based in Mumbai, filed a legal request against the Union of India and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in Chennai. They wanted a refund of INR 3,01,01,534 plus interest, which they claimed was wrongly collected as customs duty.

What’s the Issue? Shrimp Feed Duty

Between 2014 and 2017, Virbac imported Shrimp Larvae Feed and paid a lower customs duty of 5% because they said it was in pellet form. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the feed wasn’t in pellet form, which meant a higher duty of 30% was applicable. Virbac ended up paying the difference.

Virbac's Argument: We Paid Under Protest

Virbac argued that they paid the extra duty while disagreeing with it. They referred to the Finance Bill of 2019, which they believed clarified that both pellet and non-pellet forms should have the same 5% duty. They felt this entitled them to a refund.

"According to the petitioner, the sum collected during DRI investigation has to be refunded."

Court’s Take: No Refund, No Unjust Enrichment

The court, led by Justice Abdul Quddhose, found that Virbac had voluntarily paid the duty without disagreeing at the time. The court emphasized that the Finance Bill was not the same as the Finance Act, meaning the changes were not retroactive.

"The differential customs duty collected was not paid under protest... the notification is prospective, not retrospective."

Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed

The court dismissed the petition, stating Virbac didn’t provide evidence that they hadn’t passed the duty cost to their buyers. This meant they couldn’t prove they wouldn’t unfairly benefit from the refund.

Tags:
Import Regulations
Customs Act
Financial Fraud