Concessional customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. remains claimable in appeal despite no protest at finalisation.
Imported goods from Indonesia were analysed for eligibility to concessional customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., as amended. The goods fell within the covered tariff entry, and the certificate of origin, invoice details and accepted classification supported application of the concessional rate; the notification benefit was therefore available. The text also states that a provisional customs assessment remains provisional for all purposes, so an importer is not barred from claiming the notification benefit in appeal merely because no protest was made at finalisation. On that basis, the appellate relief was properly entertained and the revenue challenge failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods from Indonesia were eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus as amended. (ii) Whether a provisional assessment and the absence of protest at finalisation barred the importer from claiming the notification benefit in appeal.
Issue (i): Whether the imported goods from Indonesia were eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus as amended.
Analysis: The goods were imported from Indonesia and fell under the tariff entry covered by Sl. No. 195 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. The certificate of origin and invoice details were verified by the proper officer, and the classification accepted by the lower authority also brought the goods within the scope of the concessional entry. The amended notification continued to extend the benefit to such imports.
Conclusion: The goods were eligible for the concessional rate of duty and the denial of the notification benefit was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether a provisional assessment and the absence of protest at finalisation barred the importer from claiming the notification benefit in appeal.
Analysis: A provisional assessment is provisional for all purposes and cannot be treated as provisional for one purpose and final for another. Even if the importer had not contested the denial at the stage of finalisation, the assessment remained appealable and the benefit could still be claimed in appeal. The absence of an earlier protest did not create any bar to appellate relief.
Conclusion: The importer was not barred from raising the claim in appeal, and the appellate authority rightly entertained the claim.
Final Conclusion: The appellate authority's grant of notification benefit was affirmed, and the revenue challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A provisional customs assessment is provisional for all purposes, and an assessee may challenge denial of a notification benefit in appeal even if the claim was not pressed at the stage of finalisation.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
