2009 (6) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Upholds Decision Denying CVD Refund

CHARU HOME PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus CC. (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, upheld the lower authorities' decision in the 2009 (6) TMI 355 case, dismissing the appellant's claim for refund of ... Whether the claim filed by the appellant for refund of CVD paid on the goods imported by them is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. - As rightly observed by the original authority, any distress sale per se would not mean that incidence of duty paid on such goods by the seller was not passed on to the buyer - Chartered Accountant certificate that duty burden has not been passed on - Such a certificate should be based on accounts and accounting practices/principles. None of this is discernible from this document. Therefore, the lower authorities are fully justified in having not admitted the Chartered Accountant’s certificate as evidence against bar of unjust enrichment. The appellant has no case that a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence was not given to them by the original authority – appeal dismissed The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in the 2009 (6) TMI 355 case, considered whether a claim for refund of CVD paid on imported goods was barred by unjust enrichment. The appellant's claim was rejected by lower authorities due to insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer. The evidence presented included a Bill of Entry, an invoice showing a distress sale, and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. The tribunal found that the distress sale alone did not disprove the passing on of duty, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate lacked a proper basis. The tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, dismissing the appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support refund claims and the need for proper documentation to counter the unjust enrichment presumption.