Refund of duty on returned goods allowed where the duty burden was not passed on and unjust enrichment did not apply.

Refund of duty on returned goods was held admissible where the claim related only to the second duty payment on re-clearance and the buyer had not borne that duty. On the evidence, the duty burden was not passed on to the consumer, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The cited authorities on returned goods and excess duty payment were treated as applicable to those facts, supporting allowance of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on returned goods was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods had been returned and were subsequently cleared again on payment of duty. The refund claim related only to the second payment of duty, and the record showed that the buyer had not borne that amount. The Commissioner had examined the material facts and evidence and found that the duty had not been passed on to the consumer. The cited decisions on returned goods, excess payment of duty, and the inapplicability of unjust enrichment were found applicable to the facts.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and the plea of unjust enrichment did not apply.

---