2011 (3) TMI 1233 - HC - Customs

Refund - assessee imported Hooks, Loops and Adhesive Tapes from Taiwan - confiscation of the above goods giving option to redeem the goods on payment of re-demption fine - Held that - CEGAT disposed of the application vide order dated 2nd June, 1994, inter alia observing that their earlier order dated 13th March, 1992 had been complied with and, therefore, no further directions were required to be issued as the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment - The petitioner could not produce relevant documents to show that they had not passed the incidence of duty to the customers/consumer. The order dated 2nd June, 1994 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, records that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner to furnish proof to the effect that the burden/element of duty was not been passed to the customers/consumers, but no documents were produced to substantiate the case. On several dates the petitioner had not appeared inspite of opportunity granted. As noted above, the petitioner wanted to donate the amount to a Charitable/Welfare Trust. Accordingly, the claim of refund of Rs. 1,54,230 and Rs. 42,783 was rejected - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the value declared for imported goods and subsequent actions by the Additional Collector of Customs.
2. Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the value declared and classification of goods.
3. Rejection of the claim for interest by CEGAT.
4. Allegations of authorities not implementing CEGAT's order and subsequent reprimand.
5. Show cause notice issued to prove non-passing of extra duty to consumers.
6. Application before CEGAT rejected based on unjust enrichment grounds.
7. Final decision on refund and rejection of claim based on lack of evidence.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, imported goods from Taiwan in 1988, leading to a dispute over the declared value. The Additional Collector of Customs enhanced the values, demanded payment, and ordered confiscation, with an option for redemption. Appeals were made to CEGAT, which directed acceptance of the declared value but did not address the goods' classification. The issue of interest on the refund was rejected by CEGAT, and subsequent attempts for interest were also denied. A show cause notice in 1994 required proof that extra duty paid was not passed on to consumers.

A subsequent application to CEGAT was disposed of, with the claim rejected due to unjust enrichment under the Customs Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs upheld this decision, citing the lack of evidence that the duty burden was not transferred to consumers. Despite opportunities, the petitioner failed to provide substantial proof, and the claim for refund was denied, with the amount to be credited to the consumer welfare fund. The court upheld this decision, noting the petitioner's failure to challenge the relevant provisions of the Act and dismissed the writ petition without costs.