9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issues of valuation of imported machinery, refund of excess customs duty, application of unjust enrichment principle, and interpretation of relevant sections of the Customs Act. Valuation of Imported Machinery: The appellants imported second-hand machinery in 1993 for their captive use. The assessing authority rejected the declared value and assessed customs duty at an enhanced value. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the enhancement of value and observing that the appellants would be entitled to consequential relief as per law. Refund of Excess Customs Duty: After the Tribunal's order, the appellants filed a claim for refund of the excess customs duty paid. The original and first appellate authorities sanctioned the claim but directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, denying cash refund based on unjust enrichment principles. Application of Unjust Enrichment Principle: The appellants argued that unjust enrichment did not apply to them as they were the ultimate consumers of the goods and had not passed on the duty burden to anyone else. They contended that the lower authorities incorrectly applied a Supreme Court ruling, asserting that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to their case. Interpretation of Customs Act Sections: The Tribunal examined whether the refund claim could be denied on the grounds of unjust enrichment under Section 27(2) and Section 28(D) of the Customs Act. It was found that since the appellants were the ultimate consumers of the goods and had not passed on the duty burden, the provisions related to presumption of passing on duty did not apply. Consequently, the doctrine of unjust enrichment was deemed inapplicable, and the appeal was allowed for the cash refund of the duty amount to the appellants within three months.
|
