2011 (1) TMI 103 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - once the price is fixed by Government, there cannot be a question of unjust enrichment - In the case of M/s Hindalco Industries (2008 -TMI - 31661 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT), held that during the period prior to 13.7.06, if the assessment was provisional, unjust enrichment would not be applicable - when the sale price of the final product is decided by Government from time to time, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise Revenue s appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of barging charges in the assessable value of imported goods.
2. Entitlement to claim refund of differential duty by providing evidence against unjust enrichment.
3. Applicability of unjust enrichment in the case of imported goods with a government-fixed sale price.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported fertilizers in four consignments, and a dispute arose regarding whether the transportation cost from the anchorage of the vessel to the jetty, known as barging charges, should be included in the assessable value. A previous decision in favor of the appellant established that the barging charges were not part of the assessable value, allowing the appellant to claim a refund of the differential duty by proving unjust enrichment.

2. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claims totaling Rs.2,26,240/- for the duty charged on the transportation of fertilizers. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on a Tribunal decision related to the appellant's case, where it was held that unjust enrichment did not apply due to the government's control over the sale price of the final product, i.e., fertilizers. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the previous decision was not applicable as the current case involved different circumstances.

3. The Revenue contended that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal was not directly applicable due to additional factors like subsidies affecting the price. However, the Tribunal, considering the government-fixed sale price and the absence of unjust enrichment in a provisional assessment, upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the government's control over the final product's sale price negated the possibility of unjust enrichment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision that the transportation costs were not includible in the assessable value and that unjust enrichment did not apply due to the government's price control over the final product.