Refund on post-clearance price reduction remains maintainable where the contract price changes and the claim is timely filed.

Post-clearance price reduction under a price-variation contract can support a refund claim where the duty was paid on an unfinalised contract price and the claim is filed within limitation. In that setting, whether the original clearances were treated as provisional or final is not decisive, and Rule 9B is not controlling on maintainability. The analysis accepted precedents allowing refund on later price reduction and timely filing, while distinguishing contrary authority. The operative effect is that refund remains maintainable on the facts described when the contractual price was later reduced and the claim was brought within the statutory time limit.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising from post-clearance price reduction under a price-variation contract was maintainable without treating the clearances as provisional assessments, and whether compliance with Rule 9B was decisive when the refund claim was filed within limitation.

Analysis: The contract provided for variation in price, so the price at clearance was not final and the duty liability stood correspondingly affected when the price was later reduced. The refund claim was filed within the statutory time limit, and in such a situation the character of the assessment as provisional or final was not decisive. The requirement under Rule 9B was therefore not treated as controlling the maintainability of the refund claim. The precedents supporting refund in cases of price variation and timely claim were accepted, while the contrary reliance on the Supreme Court decision was distinguished.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be maintainable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---