https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46658 The Court directed the petitioner to pay duty on the invoice value for five containers, with security, and paid duty under protest for the remaining 21 containers. Refund claims under the Customs Act require proof that duty burden was not passed on. The Court emphasized the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the State. The burden of proof lies with the importer to show duty incidence was not passed on. The judgment granted the petitioner liberty to claim a refund if duty incidence was not passed on, emphasizing expeditious decision-making by Customs Authorities. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:44:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46658 The Court directed the petitioner to pay duty on the invoice value for five containers, with security, and paid duty under protest for the remaining 21 containers. Refund claims under the Customs Act require proof that duty burden was not passed on. The Court emphasized the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the State. The burden of proof lies with the importer to show duty incidence was not passed on. The judgment granted the petitioner liberty to claim a refund if duty incidence was not passed on, emphasizing expeditious decision-making by Customs Authorities. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46658