ORDER 1. The respondents loaded polyester fabrics on the vessel Cherry Chentak on 3-1-1983 for export to Aden and Jeddah. The vessel set sail from Bombay, but on 7-3-1983, while still within the territorial waters of India, sank. The cargo loaded by the respondents was destroyed. 2. The respondents contended, even so, that they had exported the said cargo and were entitled to duty drawback thereon under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971. The claim and the appeal there from having been rejected, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants are in appeal. 3. "Drawback" is defined by Rule 2(a) of the said Rules. Drawback is available to "goods manufactured in India and exported". For the purposes of the Rules, "export" is defined to mean, "taking out of India to a place outside India". 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that, in the instant case, there was no export as contemplated by the said Rules inasmuch as the said cargo had not been taken out of India to a place out of India; in fact, the vessel had sunk and the said cargo was destroyed within the territorial waters of India. Our attention was drawn to the judgment of this Court in Collector of Customs v. Sun Industries 1. This was a case where goods had been loaded on to a vessel in India and the vessel had sunk after it moved out of the territorial waters. This Court said: (ELT pp. 243-44, para 6) "When the ship got clearance and moved out of the territorial waters the export was complete .... But the expression taking out to a place outside India would also mean a place in high seas. It is beyond the territorial waters of India. High seas would also mean a place outside India, if it is beyond the territorial waters of India. Therefore, if the goods were taken out to the high seas outside territorial waters of India, they will come within the ambit of expression taking out to a place outside India . Indubitably the goods had been taken out of India." 5. The emphasis in the judgment aforementioned is on the movement of the goods outside the territorial waters of India. It is then that an export may be said to have taken place. Indubitably the goods had been taken out of India." 5. The emphasis in the judgment aforementioned is on the movement of the goods outside the territorial waters of India. It is then that an export may be said to have taken place. In the instant case, the said cargo was destroyed when the vessel sunk within the territorial waters of India. There was, therefore, no export of the said cargo. Accordingly, no duty drawback was available in respect of the said cargo. 6.The civil appeal is allowed. 7.No order as to costs. 1 1988 Supp SCC 342 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 289 : (1988) 35 ELT 241