Verification of identical FOB values in origin claims upheld as a valid compliance step, not an ultra vires denial of preferential duty benefit.

Clause 3(ii) of the public notice was treated as a verification measure under the governing origin rules, requiring an importer to explain identical FOB values in the FTA-COO and third-country invoice at the self-assessed Bill of Entry stage. The Court held that this procedural requirement was aimed at checking compliance for preferential duty claims and did not deny the substantive benefit under the trade regime or render the notice ultra vires. It also held that a broad challenge to the notice could not secure a blanket direction for clearance of goods or automatic grant of notification benefit without transaction-specific examination of compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 3(ii) of the public notice requiring an importer to furnish an explanation for identical FOB values in the FTA-COO and the third country invoice was illegal or ultra vires the governing origin rules, and whether the petitioner could obtain a direct direction to clear the goods and extend the notification benefit.

Analysis: The public notice was issued in the context of verification of claims for preferential duty under the applicable origin framework. Clause 3(ii) applied only where the third country invoice and the FTA-COO showed identical FOB values, in which event the importer was required to give an explanation at the stage of self-assessed Bill of Entry. The requirement was treated as a verification mechanism to assist the proper officer in checking compliance with the relevant rules, and not as a denial of the substantive benefit under the preferential trade regime. The Court further held that a challenge to the public notice could not be used to secure an omnibus direction for final assessment or for grant of the notification benefit in respect of particular bills of entry without examination of transaction-specific compliance.

Conclusion: Clause 3(ii) was held to be valid and not ultra vires, and the request for direct assessment and blanket grant of benefit was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement asking for an explanation of identical FOB values, when used only for verification of compliance with the governing origin rules, does not invalidate a preferential trade claim or render the instruction ultra vires, and transaction-specific relief cannot be granted in the abstract through a challenge to the public notice itself.

---