Unjust enrichment and customs refund: duty burden not passed on where imported goods were consumed in manufacture, allowing refund.

Imported goods consumed by the importer in manufacture, and not sold as such, were treated as falling within the statutory refund exception because the incidence of customs duty had not been passed on to a buyer. The amended refund framework still governed the claim since the application was filed before amendment, but on the admitted facts the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. Refund of the excess additional customs duty was therefore available on proof that the duty burden remained with the importer rather than being transferred downstream.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to refund of excess customs duty on the footing that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and whether the amended refund provisions barred relief.

Analysis: The refund application had been made before the amendment, so it was required to be dealt with under the amended refund framework. The decisive question was whether the imported goods were sold as such so that the duty burden was transferred to a buyer, or whether they were brought for own use and consumed in manufacture. On the admitted facts, the goods were imported for own use, were not sold in the imported form, and were consumed in the manufacturing process. In such a situation, the case fell within the statutory exception for refund where the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was therefore not attracted on the facts proved before the Court.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to refund of the excess additional customs duty, and the customs authorities were directed to grant the refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are not sold as such and the incidence of customs duty is not passed on to any buyer, refund cannot be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and the claimant falls within the statutory refund exception.

---