2013 (2) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Consumer Welfare Fund - Benefit under Project imports - Refund claim filed for refund of 2% security deposit - Circular No.89/95-Cus dated 09/08/1995 - Held that - The payment of cash security was made in terms of the Board s circular and the circular makes it abundantly clear that it is only a cash security and not any other payment. If that be so, the provisions of Section 27(2) which applies to duty and interest thereon, does not apply to cash securities made. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Refund of security deposit under project imports; Applicability of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; Doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II, regarding the refund of a 2% security deposit paid by the appellant for import of plate heat exchangers under project import. The appellant had deposited the security amount as per the prescribed procedure, and upon completion of the project, filed a refund claim which was sanctioned but ordered to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the failure to prove unjust enrichment under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the provision of unjust enrichment applies only to duty and interest, not to deposits made at the time of assessment, citing Circular No.89/95-Cus issued by the CBEC which clarified the nature of the cash security required for project imports.

The Revenue argued, relying on a previous Tribunal judgment, that deposits made during adjudication proceedings should be treated as duty and subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the Revenue. It noted that the cash security deposited by the appellant was in accordance with the CBEC circular, explicitly designated as a cash security and not as duty. Therefore, the Tribunal held that Section 27(2) concerning duty and interest did not apply to cash securities, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not relevant in the context of refunding cash securities. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between duty payments and cash securities in the context of project imports, emphasizing that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not extend to deposits made as cash security under specific schemes. It underscores the importance of adhering to circulars and guidelines issued by relevant authorities in determining the nature of financial obligations in customs matters.