Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of excess provisional import deposit after assessment finalisation.

Excess security deposit paid at the time of provisional clearance of imported goods, when refundable after finalisation of assessment, is not subject to the bar of unjust enrichment. The settled view applied is that such a deposit is distinct from a conventional duty refund, so the refund cannot be denied on the ground that the claimant may have passed on the burden. In this context, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not operate against repayment of the excess provisional deposit once assessment is finalised and the refundable amount is identified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies to refund of excess security deposit paid at the time of provisional clearance of imported goods, after finalization of assessment.

Analysis: The refund arose from a security deposit made at the time of import clearance and was claimed after the assessment was finalized. The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to amounts deposited provisionally where the assessment is later finalized and the excess is refundable. The reasoning treated the excess deposit as distinct from a conventional duty refund and relied on the settled view that unjust enrichment is not attracted in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was held not applicable, and the refund could not be denied on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Excess amounts deposited provisionally at the time of import clearance, and refundable upon finalization of assessment, are not subjected to the bar of unjust enrichment.

---