Refund of countervailing duty on imported potassium chloride upheld despite delay, with unjust enrichment held inapplicable.

Countervailing duty collected on import of potassium chloride technical grade was described as having been collected without authority of law, supporting a refund claim. Delay in filing the appeals and petition was not treated as sufficient to defeat the refund, especially where similarly delayed claims had been allowed. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was stated to be inapplicable on these facts, so it did not bar recovery. The petitioners were held entitled to refund of the countervailing duty with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition until payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of countervailing duty collected on import of potassium chloride technical grade despite delay in seeking refund and whether the plea of unjust enrichment could defeat the claim.

Analysis: The duty had been collected without authority of law. Although there was delay in filing the appeals and the petition, the delay was not treated as sufficient to defeat the refund claim, particularly when refund had been granted in respect of other similarly delayed claims. In these circumstances, the claim was not barred on equitable grounds, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to refund of the countervailing duty with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition until payment.

---