Classification dispute not barred by estoppel where importer consistently objected and duty payment to avoid demurrage was not acquiescence.

An importer's challenge to classification cannot be rejected merely because duty was not paid under protest where the importer had consistently disputed the classification from the outset. Filing the appeal itself constituted protest against the Revenue's view, and payment of duty to avoid demurrage did not amount to acquiescence or estoppel. A precedent involving acceptance of valuation in consultation was distinguished on its facts because the present dispute involved a continuous objection to classification. The appeal should therefore not have been dismissed on estoppel grounds and had to be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the importer had not paid duty under protest and was therefore estopped from challenging the classification adopted by the Revenue.

Analysis: The earlier precedent relied upon below was distinguished on facts because there the valuation had been accepted in consultation and duty was paid on the loaded value without objection. Here, the importer had consistently contested the classification from the beginning, and the filing of an appeal against the lower orders itself amounted to protest against the classification adopted by the Revenue. The payment of duty to avoid demurrage did not amount to acquiescence so as to bar the challenge.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal on the ground of estoppel was unjustified, and the matter was required to be decided on merits.

---