The appellant has filed the impugned four appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/PREV/CCP/KS/438-441/2022 dated 31.10.2022 disposing of import assessment matter in respect of Bills of Entry Nos. 8698827 dated 04.09.2020, 9422006 dated 03.11.2020, 9929793 dated 12.12.2020, and 2767111 dated 15.02.2021.

2. The appellant is a manufacturer and trader of edible oils, food ingredients and other food items. The instant appeals concern four Bills of Entries whereby the appellant importer, imported instant ACT II Popcorn (CTH 20081990) from Bangladesh from one of its subsidiary companies. The subject imports were allowed provisional clearance as the aspect of related party transaction was required to be investigated into by the SIIB - Special Intelligence & Investigative Branch of the Customs House.

3. It is the case of the appellant that inadvertently they did not avail of the benefit contained in Notification No.99/2011-CUS dated 09.11.2011 prescribed for south Asian countries commonly known as SAFTA exemption.

4. The Ld.Counsel has inter alia submitted that in respect of an earlier import, the Ld.Commissioner vide Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CCP/AKR/235/2021 dated 03.03.2021 in identical circumstances had remanded the matter to the lower authority with the direction for examining the claim of the appellant for SAFTA benefit at the time of finalization of the Bill of Entry by the concerned authority.

5. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant contends that they had however enclosed along with the shipping documents the Country of Origin Certificates issued by the appropriate authority in Bangladesh in respect of the subject imports. The Bills were self-assessed, however, they failed to claim the said SAFTA exemption.

6. Against the impugned assessment order, the appellant, despite the assessments being provisional in nature (and reportedly not having been finalized till the time of hearing of this appeal) filed an appeal before the Ld.Commissioner challenging the aforesaid assessment undertaken and claiming the benefit of the said SAFTA exemption Notification admissible to them. They state that they did so, as to overcome the challenge of the assessment “not having been challenged.”

7. From the Commissioner(Appeals)’s order, it is noted that the appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected primarily on the following two counts :

i. Benefit of the said exemption notification cannot be availed at the appellate stage and should have been availed at the time of clearance, since the department cannot examine the already cleared goods;

ii. The impugned BoEs were assessed provisionally and in the absence of final determination of the duty liability or final assessment, these appeals are pre-mature and therefore cannot be entertained.

Aggrieved therewith, the instant appeals.

8. We have heard the ld.AR for the Revenue who supports the impugned order.

9. It is settled law that exemption Notification benefit if admissible to the appellant can be claimed at any point in time, even post- assessment, subject to following of the usual course as stipulated in law and as long as exemption falls within the broad framework of its eligibility. Moreover, there is no estoppel in law that if the appellant/importer had carried out self-assessment without the claim for exemption, they were debarred for all times to come from claiming the said benefit as admissible. We therefore are not in agreement with the first contention of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) that exemption Notification cannot be availed at the appellate stage and should have been availed at the time of clearance. The Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has added a rider to his aforesaid reasoning for denial of exemption benefit, stating that the goods were already granted out of charge and it was not possible for the authorities to examine the said goods at this juncture. Be as it may, it is on record that the appellant had at the time of initial assessment itself furnished before the author