Unjust enrichment in export duty refund: supporting records showed the duty burden stayed with the exporter, making refund admissible.

Refund of export duty was examined against the doctrine of unjust enrichment, with the central question being whether the duty incidence had been passed on to the foreign buyer. The contract, shipping bill, invoice, bank realisation certificate, buyer's undertaking, audited accounts and chartered accountant's certificate consistently showed that the realised amount was below FOB value and that the export duty was not recovered from the buyer. A rejection based only on financial records not showing the amount as receivable, and on the departmental circular, was found unsustainable; the supporting documents were treated as sufficient to establish that the burden remained with the exporter, and the refund claim was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of export duty was barred by unjust enrichment, i.e. whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the foreign buyer.

Analysis: The contract recorded that all Indian taxes on cargo were to be borne by the seller. The shipping bill, invoice, bank realisation certificate, buyer's undertaking, audited accounts and chartered accountant's certificate consistently showed that the amount realised was lower than the FOB value and that the export duty was not recovered from the buyer. The rejection of refund based only on financial records not showing the amount as receivable, and on the circular relied upon by the department, was found unsustainable. The supporting documents were treated as sufficient to establish that the duty burden remained with the exporter.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

---