2018 (2) TMI 960 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - credit of amount to Consumer Welfare Fund - Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - since the refund claim does not pertain to only the said amount and also relates to the customs duty and the CVD component, Chartered Accountant certificate cannot be considered for deciding the issue regarding applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment - the appellant has not produced any other evidence to show that it had not passed on the duty incidence to any other person - transferring the refund amount by the authorities below to the Consumer Welfare fund is not faulted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Crediting refund amount to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellant imported PVC floor sweep and filed a Bill of Entry declaring a value of &8377; 22,69,275. The department provisionally assessed the goods at a higher value of &8377; 51,48,320. After final assessment, duty was paid on the value of &8377; 34,01,480, resulting in an excess duty payment of &8377; 3,61,618. The appellant sought a refund, which was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that it bore the excess duty burden and did not pass it on to any other party. The appellant's auditor certified that the duty incidence was borne by the appellant, and the goods were sold at a lower price than the provisionally assessed value, negating unjust enrichment.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that as per Customs statute, the refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless the claimant proves that the duty burden was not passed on. The onus was on the appellant to demonstrate non-passing of the duty burden, which was not satisfactorily discharged.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal examined the Chartered Accountant's certificate provided by the appellant, which lacked specific details and relevance to the case. The appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to show non-passing of duty burden. The argument that goods were sold at a lower price did not absolve the duty burden passing issue. Since statutory provisions mandate proof of non-passing of duty burden, the Tribunal upheld the crediting of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no error in the lower authorities' decision to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding non-passing of duty burden, as required by Customs statute.