2011 (6) TMI 553 - AT - Customs

Refund unjust enrichment Held that - Bill of Entry clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has enhanced the rate of duty from 5% to 15% and the said amount was paid by the appellant. It would indicate that the appellant had collected the amount of duty as per Bill of Entry in the invoices and which also indicate that the appellant were charging Rs. 15,000/- per CBM for few of the consignments sold by him. some of the invoices also indicate a price of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- per CBM as submitted by the ld. Counsel. assessee s own evidence in form of Chartered Engineer s (sic) certificate indicates the inclusion of the customs duty paid as per Bill of Entry, appellant has not passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment. appellant is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned a refund claim filed by the appellant after a Tribunal's final order regarding the classification of Sawn Timber. The appellant sought a refund of customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty paid. The adjudicating authority granted the customs duty refund but ordered it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. The authority also refunded the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant appealed the rejection of the customs duty refund to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision. The appellant contended that the goods were sold at a loss, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing import and sale values.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim of Rs. 2,83,255 on grounds of unjust enrichment, stating that the appellant failed to prove the excess duty burden was not passed on. The CA certificate indicated the cost price and included customs duty, but lacked details on duty passed to customers. The Commissioner found the denial of the refund claim justified due to insufficient evidence. The CA's certificate explicitly mentioned "Customs duty as per Bill of Entry," suggesting the duty paid by the appellant was included in sale prices, as evidenced by invoice amounts varying between Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 15,000 per CBM.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the appellant failed to overcome the unjust enrichment hurdle. The evidence indicated that the duty paid was likely passed on to customers through invoice pricing. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings of unjust enrichment.