FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are importers and manufacturers. They imported certain consignments of Ethylene dichloride and cleared the same under four Bills of Entry which were provisionally assessed to customs duty on the basis of quantities mentioned in the relevant Bills of Lading. The assessment was obviously under the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 18 of the Customs Act and the clearance of the goods was on payment of duty so assessed. Later on, the Bills of Entry were finally assessed on the basis of Ullage Survey Report, which showed lesser quantities vis -a -vis Bills of Lading. Accordingly, the customs duty payments made by the party became excessive and, consequently, refund claims were filed with the department. These claims were rejected on the ground that the claimant had not shown that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. In other words, the refund claims were held to be hit by unjust enrichment. When the original authority held so, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter upheld the lower authority's decision by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in UOI v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)]. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Heard both the sides and considered their submissions. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has made the following points : -