Provisional duty quantification for debonding can be finalized later without amounting to review when debonding conditions are completed.

The initial duty quantification for partial debonding was only provisional because the first order was conditional and final debonding had not yet occurred; under paragraph 6.18(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy, depreciation is allowed up to the date of debonding, so the payable duty depends on the actual debonding date. The second quantification order, issued after the prescribed conditions were fulfilled, was therefore not a review of a final order but a valid final determination. The assessee's challenge succeeded, and the contrary view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second quantification order passed by the Deputy Commissioner after fulfillment of debonding conditions amounted to a review of the earlier order, and whether the initial quantification before actual debonding was final or only provisional.

Analysis: The unit had sought partial debonding, and the first order quantified the duty while also prescribing conditions to be fulfilled before debonding could be completed. Under paragraph 6.18(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy, depreciation is allowable upto the date of debonding, and the exact duty payable therefore depends on the actual date of debonding and the depreciation available on that date. Since the initial order was conditional and the final debonding had not yet occurred, any earlier quantification could only be treated as provisional. The second order, passed after fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, did not amount to the Deputy Commissioner reviewing his own final order.

Conclusion: The second quantification order was valid and was not a review of the earlier conditional order. The challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view succeeded and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---