Unjust enrichment bars customs duty refund where the claimant cannot rebut the presumption of duty pass-through.

Refund of customs duty was barred by unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce credible corroborative evidence, costing data, or other material to rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyer; a chartered accountant's certificate alone was held insufficient, and the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was sustained. Refund of interest on warehoused goods was also held unsustainable because the interest was payable on the duty amount calculated with reference to the rate prevailing on the date of warehousing, and a later change in duty rate at ex-bond clearance did not unsettle that liability. The order rejecting both refund claims was therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim for duty was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment; (ii) whether the refund claim for interest was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim for duty was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claimant was required to rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyer. The record showed no credible corroborative evidence, costing data, or other material to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. A chartered accountant's certificate, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to displace the presumption under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The refund of duty was rightly held to be barred by unjust enrichment, and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim for interest was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Interest on warehoused goods was payable on the duty amount calculated with reference to the rate prevalent on the date of warehousing. A subsequent change in duty rate at the time of ex-bond clearance did not affect the interest already payable, and the claim for refund of interest was therefore unsupported in law.

Conclusion: The refund claim for interest was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund claims was affirmed and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim, the claimant must produce substantive evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of passing on the duty burden; a bare certificate is insufficient to defeat unjust enrichment.

---