Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of excess customs interest treated as a recoverable deposit

Refund of excess interest paid on customs duty was treated as arising from a mistaken rate application and therefore as a deposit rather than a regular duty component. A chartered accountant's certificate and audited balance sheet showed the amount as recoverable under deposits and advances, which was sufficient to establish that the burden had not been passed on. The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess interest paid on customs duty was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the appellant had shown sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the amount was not passed on.

Analysis: The excess payment arose from payment of interest at a wrong rate and was treated as a mistake or clerical error rather than a regular duty component. The appellant produced a chartered accountant's certificate and an audited balance sheet showing the amount as recoverable in the books under deposits and advances. On these facts, the excess amount was in the nature of a deposit and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. The evidence on record was sufficient to establish that the burden had not been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess interest amount.

---