Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Customs Duty Refund Case Due to Inapplicability of Unjust Enrichment. Encashment of Bank Guarantees Not Equivalent to Payment of Duty Under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved M/s Patanjali Foods Limited, formerly known as M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, appealing against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court regarding customs duty refunds. The appellant had imported crude degummed soybean oil and faced issues with the customs department over the payment of differential duty based on a notification that was not in the public domain at the time of import. The appellant challenged the notification and was granted interim relief by the High Court, which allowed the clearance of goods upon furnishing bank guarantees for the differential duty. After the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, the department encashed the bank guarantees, prompting the appellant to seek refunds. The High Court ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied, requiring the appellant to prove that the duty had not been passed on to customers. The Supreme Court, however, found that the encashment of bank guarantees did not constitute payment of duty and thus the unjust enrichment principle was not applicable. The Court directed the respondents to refund the amounts along with interest, emphasizing that the retention of funds was unlawful. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside.

Headnote

A) Customs Law - Refund of Duty - Applicability of Unjust Enrichment - Customs Act, 1962, Section 27 - Court held that encashment of bank guarantees cannot be equated with payment of customs duty, thus the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. Respondents were directed to refund the amounts covered by the bank guarantees along with interest, as retention was unjust and unlawful (Paras 30-31).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to the encashment of bank guarantees provided as security for customs duty.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered the respondents to refund the amounts covered by the bank guarantees to the appellant, along with interest at the rate of 6 percent from the dates of encashment until repayment, to be completed within four months.

Law Points

  • Customs duty
  • refund application
  • unjust enrichment
  • bank guarantee encashment
  • Section 27 Customs Act
  • 1962
  • Section 11B Central Excise Act
  • 1944
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (SC) (5) 95

Civil Appeal No. 3833 - 3835 of 2025

2025-05-19

Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhay S. Oka

Balbir Singh, Nisha Bagchi

M/s Patanjali Foods Limited

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions concerning customs duty refunds.

Remedy Sought

Refund of amounts covered by bank guarantees encashed by the department.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the applicability of unjust enrichment and the legality of bank guarantee encashment.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the writ petitions but allowed the appellant to submit documents regarding unjust enrichment.

Issues

Whether the encashment of bank guarantees constitutes payment of customs duty. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in this case.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that encashment of bank guarantees does not equate to payment of duty and unjust enrichment is not applicable. Respondents contended that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents to support the refund claims.

Ratio Decidendi

Encashment of bank guarantees provided as security does not constitute payment of customs duty, thus the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Judgment Excerpts

Encashment of bank guarantees offered as security cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Retention of such amounts is unjust and unlawful, and the same would carry interest at the rate of 6 percent.

Procedural History

The appellant filed writ petitions challenging the encashment of bank guarantees after the High Court dismissed earlier petitions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard the case, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Customs Act, 1962: Section 14, Section 27
  • Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 11B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Retired Employee’s Challenge to Recovery of Excess Pay from Pension Benefits. Court Holds That Voluntary Undertakings Bind Employee and Recovery Is Permissible Under Rule 134A of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rule...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Writ Petition Challenging Municipal Commissioner's Sanction of 13.40 Meter Road Line Through Developer's Slum Rehabilitation Layout. SRA Admitted Error in No Objection and Recommended Hearing; MCGM Willing to Entertain Mod...