https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116928 Refund of customs duty was barred by unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce credible corroborative evidence, costing data, or other material to rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyer; a chartered accountant's certificate alone was held insufficient, and the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was sustained. Refund of interest on warehoused goods was also held unsustainable because the interest was payable on the duty amount calculated with reference to the rate prevailing on the date of warehousing, and a later change in duty rate at ex-bond clearance did not unsettle that liability. The order rejecting both refund claims was therefore affirmed. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116928 Refund of customs duty was barred by unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce credible corroborative evidence, costing data, or other material to rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyer; a chartered accountant's certificate alone was held insufficient, and the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was sustained. Refund of interest on warehoused goods was also held unsustainable because the interest was payable on the duty amount calculated with reference to the rate prevailing on the date of warehousing, and a later change in duty rate at ex-bond clearance did not unsettle that liability. The order rejecting both refund claims was therefore affirmed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116928