COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EP) Vs. UMAX ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the order -in -original was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondents filed a Bill of Entry for the import of various items including cosmetics of Chinese origin. After 'second check' examination the value of the cosmetic items were loaded on the basis of contemporaneous import and it was found that the value has been mis -declared as un -branded resulting in a duty amount of Rs. 2,12,000/ - sought to be evaded. The goods were confiscated and allowed redemption on a fine of Rs. 5,98,480/ - along with a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/ -. On appeal the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000/ - and penalty to Rs. 30,000/ - with grant of consequential relief. In pursuance of the same the respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 6,43,480/ - which was sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund holding that the refund is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent's appeal was allowed holding that the refund claim is beyond the scope of vires of unjust enrichment under Section 27 and beyond presumption of Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered to be refunded to the respondents without crediting of the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is before me.

(3.) CONSIDERING the arguments advanced by both the sides, the issue comes out that whether the refund of fine and penalty is subject to doctrine of unjust enrichment.