Customs duty refund denied as importer failed to prove burden wasn't passed to buyer under Section 27

CESTAT Bangalore dismissed the appeal challenging denial of customs duty refund on unjust enrichment grounds. The tribunal held that unless the importer proves duty incidence was not passed to the buyer, refund cannot be granted. Citing SC precedent in Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal noted Section 27 amendments in 1991 allow refund only when duty burden remains with the importer and hasn't been transferred to others. The original order denying refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 for exemption from customs duty, the question of unjust enrichment in a refund claim, and the burden of duty passed on to the buyer.

Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002:
The appellant, a shipyard company, filed a bill of entry for clearance of a dredger manufactured under bond, claiming exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to a refund claim for duty amount. The Revenue appealed, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to lack of COD clearance, directing the authorities to decide the refund claim on merits.

Question of Unjust Enrichment:
The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund claim, stating that the duty incidence was passed on to the buyer, Chennai Port Trust, and the claim was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that the duty amount advanced by the buyer was shown as payable in their books, indicating it was not passed on. The Revenue contended that the duty burden was borne by the buyer, and unless evidence proves otherwise, refund cannot be sanctioned.

Burden of Duty Passed on to Buyer:
The main issue was whether the duty burden was passed on to the buyer, Chennai Port Trust, affecting the refund claim. The appellant admitted that the buyer advanced the customs duty amount, and documents confirmed the reimbursement. The appellant claimed the amount was an advance and would be repaid after the refund claim. However, the law on unjust enrichment requires proof that duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer for a refund to be granted.

The judgment dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the refund claim based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the burden of duty passed on to the buyer. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and the evidence presented regarding the duty burden and refund claim.

---