Preferential tariff benefit cannot be denied for third-country invoicing or minor invoice discrepancies where origin conditions are otherwise proved.

Preferential tariff benefit under the AIFTA origin rules cannot be denied merely because the sales invoice was issued through a third-country supplier, where the goods otherwise satisfy the prescribed origin conditions. The rules permit acceptance of an AIFTA Certificate of Origin even when invoicing is done by a company in a third country or by an AIFTA exporter for that company's account. A minor discrepancy in invoice particulars, such as a difference in invoice numbers caused by split invoicing, does not defeat concessional duty benefit if the goods and their Indonesian origin remain established. The operative principle is that clerical irregularities cannot override substantive proof of origin.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of the Preferential Trade Agreement could be rejected merely because the sales invoice was issued by a third-country supplier; (ii) Whether a minor difference in invoice particulars between the Certificate of Origin and the import invoice could justify denial of the concessional duty benefit.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of the Preferential Trade Agreement could be rejected merely because the sales invoice was issued by a third-country supplier.

Analysis: The governing operational certification procedure under the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods) Rules, 2009 permits acceptance of an AIFTA Certificate of Origin even where the sales invoice is issued by a company located in a third country or by an AIFTA exporter for the account of such company, so long as the product satisfies the origin requirements. Since the goods were certified as Indonesian in origin, the mere fact that the invoice came through a third-country supplier did not furnish a valid basis to deny the preferential benefit.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a minor difference in invoice particulars between the Certificate of Origin and the import invoice could justify denial of the concessional duty benefit.

Analysis: The difference in invoice numbers was only marginal and arose from the addition of letters in the supplier invoice, while the goods and their Indonesian origin remained established. The explanation that the invoice had been split for convenience was accepted as plausible, and the discrepancy did not affect the substantive entitlement under the Preferential Trade Agreement.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground also was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of the preferential customs benefit was not justified, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief as admissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable origin rules expressly permit third-country invoicing and the imported goods are otherwise proven to satisfy the origin conditions, a minor clerical discrepancy in invoice particulars that does not undermine origin cannot be used to deny preferential duty benefit.

---