Unjust enrichment bars duty refund where the duty burden is passed on through product pricing.

Refund of duty is not admissible unless the claimant proves that the duty incidence was not passed on, directly or indirectly, to customers. The governing test is unjust enrichment: mere proof of payment is insufficient where the duty on raw material forms part of the price of the finished goods, because the burden is treated as passed on to the purchaser. On the facts stated, the duty burden on chlorine was passed on, so the refund claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty could be granted when the claimant failed to prove that the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers.

Analysis: The question was answered by applying the principle that, for refund of duty, it is not enough to show that duty was paid; the relevant test is whether the incidence of such duty had been passed on, directly or indirectly. Where the duty on raw material forms part of the price of the finished goods, the burden is treated as passed on to the purchaser of the finished product. On that basis, a refund claim is barred when unjust enrichment is established.

Conclusion: The refund was not admissible, as the burden of duty on chlorine was passed on and the claim was rightly rejected.

---