Customs refund claims remain subject to unjust enrichment when pending at amendment; passing-on of duty incidence must be proved.

A refund claim arising from abatement on damaged imported goods was treated as a claim for excess duty paid after assessment and clearance, so Section 27 of the Customs Act governed the refund. The amended refund regime applied to all claims not finally and unconditionally refunded before the amendment came into force, and the pending claim therefore attracted the bar of unjust enrichment. The claimant was required to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on, but the loss figures and chartered accountant's certificate were found insufficient. The refund was accordingly rejected and the denial of restitution sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from abatement of customs duty on damaged imported goods was governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act and, if so, whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied to a refund claim pending when the amended provision came into force.

Analysis: The refund claim was held to be a claim for excess duty paid after the goods were assessed and cleared, even though the abatement originated from damage to the imported goods under Section 22 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that refund of duty is governed by Section 27, and that the amended provision applies to all refund claims not finally and unconditionally refunded before the amendment came into force. Since the refund application was still pending when the amendment took effect, the claimant was required to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The material produced, including the loss figures and chartered accountant's certificate, was found insufficient to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers.

Conclusion: The refund claim was subject to Section 27 of the Customs Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the assessee failed to disprove passing on of duty incidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the rejection of refund was sustained because the pending claim attracted the amended refund regime and the assessee did not establish entitlement to restitution.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim not finally and unconditionally settled before the amendment of Section 27 of the Customs Act remains subject to the amended refund regime, including the requirement to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---