Judgment
1. Order-in-Appeal No. 50/91, dated 4-3-1991 setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 11-5-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bangalore is challenged by the Department.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of watches, imported a consignment of watch components and presented Bill of Entry dated 11-5-1990, Invoice and other documents and sought clearance at the assessable value indicated therein. The consignment consisted of Crystals, Gaskets, 'O' Rings. Assistant Collector enhanced the value of Crystals of two models from Japanese Yen 22 to Japanese Yen 28 per unit and Japanese Yen 30 per unit respectively. Respondent paid duty accordingly and cleared the goods. Thereafter, the respondent challenged this order before the Collector (Appeals) who set aside the loading of value made by the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal. Department is now challenging the order of Collector (Appeals) on the sole ground that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) would result in refund of excess duty paid which, in turn, would entail unjust enrichment of the appellant inasmuch as the benefit of duty cannot be passed on to the customers. It may be noted that all the imported components had been captively consumed by the respondent in the manufacture of watches.
3. Meanwhile, the respondent filed refund claims which were dismissed originally by the Assistant Collector on the ground of unjust enrichment and the order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) and this order was set aside by the Tribunal and the case was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision. Thereafter, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and allowed refund. This order also was set aside by the Tribunal and the case again remanded to the Collector (Appeals). It is stated that the appeal is even now pending before the Collector (Appeals).
4. In considering whether declared value is to be accepted or loaded, the question of possible unjust enrichment cannot enter into the picture. That question may arise in considering the refund claim, which is now pending before the Collector (Appeals). Department has not challenged the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the loading of value made by the Assistant Collector on merits.