Unjust enrichment on pre-clearance reassessment stayed where differential duty was allegedly not passed on to customers.

Where a bill of entry is re-assessed before clearance of goods and the duty liability is reduced, the resulting differential duty may be refundable without attracting unjust enrichment if the incidence of duty was not passed on to customers. The Tribunal recorded a prima facie view that, on the facts stated, unjust enrichment may not arise because the re-assessment occurred before clearance. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals)' order directing examination of unjust enrichment was stayed pending final disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a case where the bill of entry was re-assessed before clearance of the goods, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies so as to deny refund of the differential duty, and whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) calling for examination of unjust enrichment should be stayed pending appeal.

Analysis: The goods were re-examined before clearance and the bill of entry was re-assessed on that basis, resulting in a reduced duty liability and a differential amount being refundable. The contention raised was that, in such circumstances, there was no passing on of duty incidence to customers and the question of unjust enrichment did not arise. The Tribunal recorded a prima facie view that this contention had merit.

Outcome: The operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order was stayed till final disposal of the appeal.

---