Provisional assessment refund was not barred by unjust enrichment for pre-amendment customs deposits.

Refund arising from provisional assessment and deposits made during pending customs proceedings was treated as a refund of a deposit or pre-deposit, not as a duty payment for unjust enrichment purposes. For the period before insertion of the unjust enrichment clause in section 18 of the Customs Act, the importer's deposit retained its original character, and later appropriation could not by itself convert it into duty. On that basis, unjust enrichment did not bar the refund, and the importer was entitled to return of the disputed amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund arising from provisional assessment and deposits made during pendency of customs proceedings was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were assessed provisionally and the dispute related to the period prior to the insertion of the unjust enrichment clause in section 18 of the Customs Act. The deposit made by the importer retained the character of a deposit or pre-deposit, and once the demand was set aside in appeal, the earlier appropriation could not be treated as conclusive conversion of the amount into duty. The reasoning was supported by the legal position that unjust enrichment was not applicable to refunds arising from provisional assessment for the relevant pre-amendment period.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and the importer was entitled to refund of the disputed amount.

---