Preferential duty claims must follow the trade agreement and binding CBIC instructions, not inconsistent local customs notices.

A customs public notice could not override the governing free trade agreement framework, the statutory scheme for preferential-origin claims, or binding CBIC instructions. The rejection of preferential duty benefit based on the public notice and an FOB value mismatch was unsustainable because the later CBIC clarification recognised third-party invoicing, declined compulsion of commercially confidential importer information, and required any denial of preference to follow the prescribed verification mechanism. The customs house later acknowledged that its earlier procedure stood modified to the extent of the CBIC instruction. The rejection was therefore set aside and fresh assessment directed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of preferential duty benefit under the free trade agreement, founded on Public Notice No. 33/2024 and the FOB value mismatch, could be sustained in the light of CBIC instructions and the governing trade agreement framework.

Analysis: The preferential claim was rejected by treating the public notice as controlling and by demanding the exporter's invoice and breakup of values as a precondition for clearance. The subsequent CBIC clarification stated that third-party invoicing is a recognised trade practice, that commercially confidential information need not be compelled from the importer, and that any denial of preference must conform to the trade agreement and the prescribed verification mechanism. The later public notice issued by the Customs House itself acknowledged that the earlier procedure stood modified to the extent of the CBIC instruction. In these circumstances, the basis of the impugned rejection was found to have been displaced, and a public notice could not override the statutory and treaty-based scheme or the binding instruction issued by CBIC.

Conclusion: The rejection of preferential duty benefit could not be sustained and the assessment order was set aside with a direction for fresh assessment in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs public notice cannot dilute or override the governing trade agreement, the statutory scheme for preferential-origin claims, or binding CBIC instructions issued within its lawful authority; a denial of preferential duty must rest on the prescribed legal procedure and not on an inconsistent local requirement.

---