2023 (6) TMI 158 - AT - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty - import of second hand vessel for dredging purposes, called CSD Aquarius along with accessories - rejection on the ground of limitation and on the ground of unjust enrichment - lower authority credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the present contract price is higher than the previous one, after importation of dredger, and held that it has passed duty to the incidence to other - HELD THAT - The findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeal) have not been controverted by the Revenue with documentary evidence. Merely saying that the Chartered Accountant s Certificate cannot be relied upon to hold that the bar of unjust enrichment is passed - In this case, the goods brought under the impugned Bills of Entry are still in use by the respondents themselves and the Director (Operations Technical) of the respondents, has also certified the same. In that circumstances, the respondent has passed the bar of unjust enrichment as the goods are in the possession of the respondent/importer. There are no infirmity in the impugned order, accordingly, the same is upheld - the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of Customs duty on imported vessel and accessories, claim for refund, principle of unjust enrichment.

Assessment of Customs duty on imported vessel and accessories:
The case involved the import of a second-hand vessel for dredging purposes along with accessories, on which a substantial Customs duty was paid. The appellant challenged the assessment, arguing that the accessories should be assessed at the rate applicable to the dredger vessel since they formed a part of it. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing a refund of the duty paid on the accessories.

Claim for refund:
Following the Tribunal's decision, the appellant filed a claim for refund of the duty amount paid. The claim was initially rejected on grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. After a series of appeals and orders, the refund claim was finally sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, but the amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Subsequent challenges and appeals were made regarding the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment in crediting the refund.

Principle of unjust enrichment:
The issue of unjust enrichment was central to the case, with the appellant contending that they had passed the burden of duty as the goods, including the accessories, were still in use by them. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the refund claim, stating that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment as the goods were in their possession. The Revenue appealed against this decision, but the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s decision in favor of the appellant, finding that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment regarding the Customs duty paid on the imported vessel and accessories. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order for refund was upheld.