Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount deposited by the importer on provisional assessment as security/loading under Section 18 of the Customs Act was refundable in full on finalisation of assessment, and whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act applied to such refund.
Analysis: The assessment was provisional and the additional amount was taken only as security/surety pending valuation enquiry. On finalisation, the declared value was accepted, so the sum could not be treated as duty paid but only as a provisional deposit liable to be returned under Section 18. The principle of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to such a refund, since recoveries or refunds consequent upon provisional assessment stand outside Section 27. The reasoning was supported by the view that provisions governing provisional assessment under the Customs Act are pari materia with the corresponding excise rule dealing with adjustment on finalisation.
Conclusion: The importer was entitled to refund of the entire amount, and the Revenue's objection based on unjust enrichment failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment is a return of security or provisional deposit and is not governed by the general refund bar of unjust enrichment.