2008 (2) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Department assessed the consignments provisionally at the enhanced FOB value and the said amount was deposited by the respondent C.A. s certificate produced by respondent certify that extra duty paid has been shown as receivable from Custom authorities in books of accounts - Further, doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessment refund is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of imported goods at a different value than declared by the importer.
2. Refund claim by the importer after the final assessment.
3. Application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to provisional assessment of customs duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of White Poppy Seeds where the importer declared a certain value, but the customs department provisionally assessed the goods at a higher value, leading to duty payment by the importer. Subsequently, the value was re-fixed lower, and the importer filed a refund claim. The Tribunal found that the declared value was accepted by the Revenue, and the duty paid on the enhanced value was akin to a deposit. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and held that the issue was covered by the judgment of the Apex court in similar cases, emphasizing that the duty paid on provisional assessment did not attract the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

2. The Revenue challenged the refund claim, arguing that the importer had not proven that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the significance of a CA certificate in refund cases. However, the Tribunal noted that the primary issue was the acceptance of the declared value by the Revenue during provisional clearance. The Tribunal concluded that the duty paid on the enhanced value was refundable, especially considering the absence of any challenge to the declared value and the nature of the provisional assessment.

3. The Tribunal discussed the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to provisional assessment of customs duty. It referred to a previous decision where the Tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to refunds arising from the finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal also cited a Supreme Court judgment affirming this view, emphasizing that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to provisional assessment even after finalization. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the refund claim, stating that the impugned order suffered no infirmity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the refund claim of the importer based on the accepted declared value and the legal principles governing provisional assessment and refund claims.