2007 (1) TMI 389 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - Refund of 1% extra duty deposit - HELD THAT - We find that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct view that the amount deposited is more than the duty amount and the same is refundable. We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of 1% EDD paid by the importers.
2. Unjust enrichment and passing on the burden of duty to buyers.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the refund of 1% EDD paid by the importers, arising from the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the Order-in-Original related to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the importers were engaged in manufacturing domestic water purifiers in collaboration with their principals. The Special Valuation Branch accepted the declared transaction value, entitling the appellants to seek a refund of the 1% extra duty deposit paid on imports. The lower authority rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment principles based on a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that it was a case of provisional assessment permitted under the Customs Act, enabling the refund claim. The appellants succeeded in their appeal and were granted the refund.

2. The Revenue contended that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyers, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal carefully considered the matter and found that the amount paid was not Customs duty but an extra deposit. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the deposited amount exceeded the duty amount and was thus refundable. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of passing the duty burden to buyers, affirming the correctness of the Commissioner's decision. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision granting the refund of the 1% EDD paid by the importers, emphasizing that it was a deposit and not Customs duty. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case, as the amount deposited was found to be refundable. The judgment clarified the distinction between duty and deposit, ensuring the rightful refund to the importers without passing on the burden to buyers.