Customs valuation under notification treated 71/2% as ad valorem deduction; refund remained subject to unjust enrichment review.

Customs duty under Notification No. 431-Cus. was interpreted as duty at Rs. 20 per kg. less 71/2% ad valorem, not as 71/2% of Rs. 20 per kg. The assessment made on the contrary basis was treated as inconsistent with the accepted interpretation and set aside. On refund, the Court declined to refuse relief on the ground of an alternative remedy after a long lapse of time where no disputed facts needed inquiry, while leaving open the statutory question of unjust enrichment and possible credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the customs assessment under Notification No. 431-Cus. dated 1st November, 1976 was ly made by treating the expression "less 71/2%" as 71/2% of Rs. 20 per kg. instead of 71/2% ad valorem; and (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to refund despite the availability of an alternative remedy and the question of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the customs assessment under Notification No. 431-Cus. dated 1st November, 1976 was correctly made by treating the expression "less 71/2%" as 71/2% of Rs. 20 per kg. instead of 71/2% ad valorem.

Analysis: The assessment was contrary to the interpretation already accepted by the Revenue and reflected in the Tribunal's view that the notification contemplated duty at Rs. 20 per kg. less 71/2% ad valorem. The Court also noted that its earlier decision on identical facts had proceeded on the same interpretation. The impugned assessment therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be bad and illegal and was set aside, with substitution of the assessment at Rs. 20 per kg. less 71/2% ad valorem.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled to refund despite the availability of an alternative remedy and the question of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The Court declined to relegate the petitioners to an alternative remedy after a long lapse of time, especially where no disputed questions of fact required investigation. Once the assessment was set aside, the petitioners became entitled to refund. At the same time, in view of the subsequent amendment to the customs law, the Court left it open to the respondents to examine whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied and whether the amount was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to refund, subject to the respondents examining the question of unjust enrichment in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and replaced with the correct duty computation, and the petitioners obtained relief of refund, while the respondents retained liberty to test the refund claim on the limited statutory question of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs notification prescribes duty at a stated rate "less" a percentage, the percentage is to be applied as a deduction in the manner intended by the notification and not in a contrary arithmetical form; a stale writ petition raising no disputed factual inquiry need not be rejected on the ground of alternate remedy.

---