9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to customs duty assessment based on London Metal Exchange Price, Refund of customs duty, Doctrine of unjust enrichment, Burden of proof regarding passing on the duty burden. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the assessment made by Customs Authorities, where duty was calculated based on London Metal Exchange Price instead of the invoice price. The Court initially directed clearance of five containers on payment of duty on the invoice value, subject to providing security. For the remaining 21 containers, the petitioner paid duty under protest. 2. The respondent cited judgments of the Supreme Court regarding the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Refund claims under the Customs Act can only succeed if the burden of duty was not passed on to another person. The Court emphasized that the power of the Court should not unjustly enrich a person, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the State. 3. Referring to the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the Supreme Court held that a refund claim can only be allowed if the burden of duty was not passed on. The Court reiterated that the real loss is suffered by the person who ultimately bore the burden of duty. The Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. case further clarified that even if goods were sold with the tax burden passed on, the principle of unjust enrichment applies. The burden of proof lies with the importer to show that duty incidence was not passed on. 4. The Court concluded that even if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, they may not be entitled to a refund if the duty burden was passed on. The petitioner must prove before the authorities whether the duty incidence was passed on. The judgment granted the petitioner liberty to make a claim before Customs Authorities for a refund if duty incidence was not passed on, within a specified timeframe, emphasizing expeditious decision-making without being influenced by the Court's observations.
|
