2018 (11) TMI 764 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess Customs Duty paid - case of Revenue is that the Chartered Accountant has not verified that the excess amount paid has been shown in the accounts of the company as amount receivables - denial also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - On identical issue, this Tribunal in the case of Dream Logistics Co. India Pvt. Ltd. & others 2017 (10) TMI 709 - CESTAT BANGALORE has allowed the appeals of the assessees, by holding that when the iron ore was exported on payment of duty on FOB value, the refund of excess customs duty paid does not attract bar of unjust enrichment - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excess customs duty and cess paid on exported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) accepting the Department's appeal and setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order regarding the refund of excess customs duty and cess paid on exported goods. The appellant had exported iron ore fines and paid duty based on provisional assessment. Subsequently, the final assessment revealed an excess payment of customs duty and cess. The appellant applied for a refund, which was initially sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner but overturned by the Commissioner(Appeals).

The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as it did not consider the documents properly and was contrary to judicial pronouncements. They contended that the excess customs duty was not passed on to the buyer and cited relevant case law to support their position. On the other hand, the Department defended the impugned order, emphasizing the requirement to prove that the excess amount paid was not passed on to the buyer to avoid unjust enrichment.

After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessees in previous cases. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not charged customs duty to the buyer and had met the requirements for refund as per the relevant legal provisions and case law. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of proving that the duty had not been passed on to the buyer to avoid unjust enrichment, as per statutory provisions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, case law, and the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of avoiding unjust enrichment in matters of customs duty refunds.

The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles involved in the case, including the requirements for refund of excess customs duty, the concept of unjust enrichment, and the relevance of case law in determining the outcome of the appeal. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, submissions from both parties, and the applicable legal framework governing customs duty refunds.