2017 (1) TMI 280 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - I find that the Balance-sheet shows total purchase of ₹ 9,14,756/- and total sales of ₹ 14,31,953/-. The customs duty paid is ₹ 16,93,136/-. It is obvious that the sale price of ₹ 14,31,953/- cannot recover the cost of purchase ₹ 9,14,756/- and the customs duty ₹ 16,93,136/-. From the above, it is obvious that the sale price does not include the entire customs duty. The same has been certified by the Chartered Accountant and in the Head of summary letter the Balance-sheet clearly reflects that the amount of refund of ₹ 10,66,690/- is due from the Customs department - no unjust enrichment in place - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, unjust enrichment, compliance with Section 28C of the Customs Act, 1962

The judgment revolves around a dispute between the Revenue and the respondent concerning the valuation of imported goods. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed a refund claim, which was approved by the lower authorities after determining that there was no unjust enrichment based on the Chartered Accountant certificate and Balance-sheet provided by the appellant. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

The Revenue contended that the invoices issued by the respondent did not display the sale price as required by Section 28C of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the absence of duty amount on the invoices made it impossible for the Chartered Accountant to ascertain whether the customs duty burden had been passed on to the buyers. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted that while the Balance-sheet indicated revenue due from Customs, it did not confirm whether this amount had been collected from the buyers.

Conversely, the respondent's Counsel asserted that they had submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate and a sample invoice to the adjudicating authorities, along with the Balance-sheet. Both lower authorities had independently concluded that there was no unjust enrichment after reviewing the provided evidence.

Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that the Balance-sheet revealed total purchases, total sales, and customs duty paid. It was evident that the sale price could not cover the purchase cost and the customs duty entirely. The Chartered Accountant certified this discrepancy, and the Balance-sheet explicitly stated that a refund amount was owed by the Customs department.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, rejecting it on the grounds that the sale price did not encompass the full customs duty amount, as confirmed by the Chartered Accountant and the Balance-sheet. The judgment was pronounced on 02.12.2016.