The encashment of bank guarantees does not equate to payment of customs duty; thus, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

The present civil appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Special Civil Application Nos. 14540, 14541 and 14542 of 2015 (Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

2. Subject-matter of all the three appeals is identical and parties to the proceedings are common. Therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. In fact, facts in all the appeals are similar except the quantity of refund involved.

3. For a proper perspective, relevant facts may be noted.

4. M/s M.P. Glychem Industries Limited (‘M.P. Glychem’ for short) imported certain quantity of crude degummed soyabean oil of edible grade in bulk at Jamnagar and filed bill of entry on 02.09.2002 seeking clearance of the imported goods for home consumption. Customs department (department) did not clear the goods on the ground that appellant was required to pay higher customs duty on the basis of tariff value fixed for the imported goods in terms of Section 14(2) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the CUSTOMS ACT ’). Contention of the appellant was that at the time of the import of the goods the concerned notification issued by Government of India fixing tariff value under Section 14(2) of the CUSTOMS ACT had not come into effect. Therefore, appellant was liable to pay duty only in terms of the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of the CUSTOMS ACT .

5. Since there was an impasse with the imported goods being held up, appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 9308 of 2002 before the High Court challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Government of India fixing the tariff value of the imported goods i.e. crude degummed soyabean oil (also referred to hereinafter as the ‘subject goods’) as also the date of coming into effect of the said notification. One of the grounds of challenge was that the notification was not available for sale and was, therefore, not in the public domain. High Court passed an order dated 07.10.2002 admitting the writ petition and granted interim relief to the effect that for clearance of the goods in question, appellant should furnish a bank guarantee for the difference of duty of customs under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the CUSTOMS ACT , clarifying that this arrangement would be subject to order of final assessment.

6. On 09.10.2002, appellant had furnished bank guarantee for the differential amount of Rs. 9,19,801.00 through its banker in favour of the department. In two other writ petitions, on the same issue, bank guarantees to the extent of Rs. 45,99,006.00 and Rs. 22,25,052.00 being the differential amounts of duty were furnished. Upon furnishing the bank guarantees as above by the appellant, the subject goods were allowed to be cleared by paying customs duty payable under Section 14(1) of the CUSTOMS ACT .

7. In the meanwhile, M/s M.P. Glychem Industries Limited stood merged with M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited in terms of the order of the Bombay High Court dated 30.06.2006 and thereafter came to be known as M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited.

8. Special Civil Application No. 9308 of 2002 alongwith the other two writ petitions were finally decided by the High Court vide the ju