Refund claims with dated acknowledgement are timely, and encashed bank guarantee refunds are not hit by unjust enrichment.

A refund claim supported by a dated acknowledgement was treated as filed within limitation, even though the accompanying documents were incomplete, because the record still showed receipt of the application within time. Refund of an encashed bank guarantee was also held not to be barred by unjust enrichment, as the amount represented security furnished under the EPCG scheme and not duty collected on assessment. The note concludes that unjust enrichment does not apply where the sum refunded is not a duty incidence borne on clearance, and that a properly acknowledged refund claim cannot be rejected merely for missing supporting documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was filed within limitation on the basis of the acknowledged application; and (ii) whether refund of the encashed bank guarantee was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim was filed within limitation on the basis of the acknowledged application.

Analysis: The application for refund was supported by a covering letter carrying a clear date stamp and an acknowledgement showing receipt on 20 October 2009. The endorsement also noted that a copy of the EODC had not been received. The absence of the discharge certificate made the application incomplete, but it did not negate the fact that a refund claim had been presented and received within time.

Conclusion: The refund claim was filed within limitation and could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether refund of the encashed bank guarantee was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The encashment of a bank guarantee does not amount to duty collected on assessment. The amount related to security furnished under the EPCG scheme and not to duty paid at clearance. As the sum was not a duty incidence borne in the manner relevant to unjust enrichment, the doctrine did not apply.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The order denying refund was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim supported by a dated acknowledgement is maintainable even if the accompanying documents are incomplete, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to encashed bank guarantees that are not duty recovered on assessment.

---