2018 (1) TMI 1062 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess customs duty paid - unjust enrichment - Held that - In the case of admitted fact that at the time of import and for the year 2008-09, the higher customs duty formed part of costing, we are not able to appreciate how such a certificate that full customs duty is not hit by unjust enrichment could have been issued by the Chartered Accountant - Further, the stock as on 1.4.2009 and the utilization and costing principles followed in 2008-09 and 2009-10 has not been elaborately dealt in the said Chartered Accountant certificate to satisfy the lower authorities that appellant is not hit by bar of unjust of enrichment. Summary certificate of this nature now produced before us cannot satisfy the legal requirement. The appellants have not satisfactorily established that the duty burden has not been passed on to third party and as such could not escape the bar of unjust enrichment - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess payment of duty liability on imported goods for the year 2008-09.
2. Refund credited to Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment.
3. Rejection of Chartered Accountant certificate.
4. Claim of no unjust enrichment for goods used after 1.4.2009.
5. Appeal against the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Ethylene in bulk, leading to an excess payment of duty liability for the year 2008-09, as determined by the original authority. The excess amount was refunded but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the appellant's failure to prove that they were not affected by unjust enrichment. The impugned order upheld this decision, emphasizing that the duty burden was passed on to a third party.

2. The appellant argued that the excess payment of customs duty for the goods imported in October 2008 did not result in unjust enrichment as the cost calculation for the subsequent year, 2009-10, did not include the excess payment. They contended that the excess duty was shown as "receivables" in their books for the following year, indicating no undue enrichment. However, the opposing party argued that the excess duty was indeed included in the cost calculation for the year 2008-09, making the appellant's claim invalid.

3. The Chartered Accountant certificate issued in support of the appellant's claim was rejected by the authorities as it did not meet the legal requirements. The certificate failed to provide detailed information on the stock as of 1.4.2009 and the costing principles applied in both 2008-09 and 2009-10. Consequently, the certificate was deemed insufficient to prove that the appellant was not impacted by unjust enrichment.

4. After reviewing the appeal records and arguments from both sides, the tribunal found that the appellant had not adequately demonstrated that the duty burden was not transferred to a third party. Despite the Chartered Accountant certificate, which was deemed insufficient, the tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish their claim of no unjust enrichment. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the lower authorities.