Preferential customs duty on provisional assessment cannot be denied solely for late claim when retrospective origin certificate is valid.

In provisional assessment under the Customs Act, a preferential duty claim under a trade agreement is not defeated merely because it was not raised in the Bill of Entry or at out of charge, where a valid retrospectively issued certificate of origin is produced and origin is not disputed. Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 was read as procedural and not overriding substantive treaty entitlement. The claim must be examined at finalisation, and the CBIC instruction on retrospective certificates of origin under India-UAE CEPA had to be considered. Rejection on the ground of initial non-claim was unsustainable; the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a case of provisional assessment, the importer could claim preferential rate of duty at the stage of finalisation even though the benefit was not claimed in the Bills of Entry or at out of charge and the certificate of origin was issued retrospectively; (ii) whether the matter required reconsideration in the light of the CBIC instruction dealing with retrospective certificates of origin under India-UAE CEPA.

Issue (i): Whether, in a case of provisional assessment, the importer could claim preferential rate of duty at the stage of finalisation even though the benefit was not claimed in the Bills of Entry or at out of charge and the certificate of origin was issued retrospectively.

Analysis: The assessment in question was provisional and, therefore, fell under the regime of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The requirement in Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 that preferential claim particulars be furnished at the time of filing the Bill of Entry was construed in a manner that could not defeat the substantive entitlement under the trade agreement. The statutory framework governing rules of origin, including retrospective issuance of a certificate of origin under Rule 15(11) and refund of excess duty under Rule 21(3), supports the position that absence of a claim at the initial stage does not by itself extinguish the right, where authenticity of the certificate and originating status are not disputed. Minor discrepancies under Rule 15(13) also do not invalidate the certificate unless they affect authenticity or origin.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to have the claim for preferential treatment examined at the stage of finalisation of provisional assessment, and rejection solely on the ground that the benefit was not claimed in the Bills of Entry or at out of charge was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required reconsideration in the light of the CBIC instruction dealing with retrospective certificates of origin under India-UAE CEPA.

Analysis: The CBIC instruction specifically addressed the problem of non-acceptance of retrospectively issued certificates of origin during finalisation of provisional assessment and clarified that procedural lapses such as non-uploading of the certificate or absence of initial claim should not nullify substantive treaty benefits where origin is otherwise established. As the instruction was relevant to the finalisation exercise, it had to be considered by the adjudicating authority while deciding the claim afresh.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remanded for reconsideration with reference to the CBIC instruction and the governing rules.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision on the preferential duty claim under the CEPA framework, with the substantive entitlement to be examined at finalisation of provisional assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: In provisional assessment cases, a preferential customs duty claim is not lost merely because it was not asserted at the Bill of Entry stage if a valid retrospective certificate of origin is produced and origin is not in dispute; such claims must be examined at finalisation in light of the governing rules and applicable instructions.

---