<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (4) TMI 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790385</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790385</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>