Transaction value accepted for imported goods; refund allowed as unjust enrichment was not proved.

Declared import value was accepted as the transaction value because the invoice price was supported by the letter of credit, comparative consignments and other records, while the Revenue lacked material to justify rejection under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The enhanced valuation was therefore not sustained. The refund arising from reassessment was also not barred by unjust enrichment because the assessee showed through accounts, chartered accountant's certificate and related records that the duty burden had not been passed on. Credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unwarranted, and the refund was payable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the imported spandex yarn was liable to be rejected and the enhanced value sustained under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; (ii) whether the refund arising from the reassessment was barred by unjust enrichment and could be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported spandex yarn was liable to be rejected and the enhanced value sustained under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis: The declared invoice price was supported by the documents examined by the appellate authority, including the letter of credit and comparative consignments of similar goods accepted by the department. The adjudicating authority had rejected the declared value without adequate evidentiary basis, while the appellate authority undertook a detailed scrutiny and found the declared price to be the transaction value. In the absence of material to displace that finding, the enhanced valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was not justified.

Conclusion: The declared value was correctly accepted as the transaction value, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund arising from the reassessment was barred by unjust enrichment and could be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The assessee produced the chartered accountant's certificate, balance sheet and connected records showing that the excess duty had been absorbed in its accounts and reflected as receivable from the department. The imported spandex yarn was used as input in manufacture, and there was no material showing passing on of the duty incidence to buyers. On those facts, the bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the consequential refund, and the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee, and the refund was held to be payable to the assessee without application of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate record establishes that the declared import value is the transaction value and the duty burden has not been passed on, the valuation enhancement cannot be sustained and the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment.

---