### Local Public Notices Cannot Dilute Free Trade Agreement Benefits or Override CBIC Statutory Instructions

The Petitioner, an importer of polycarbonate resins and films from Thailand, claimed a preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 046/2011 (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement [AIFTA])

On 20.03.2024, Respondent No. 2 issued Public Notice No. 33/2024, prescribing additional document requirements for "third-party invoicing," such as providing the exporter’s invoice from the originating country to verify the FOB value

Relying on this Public Notice, Respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 12.06.2024 rejecting the Petitioner's claim for preferential duty, alleging misrepresentation of the FOB value because the Petitioner could not provide the manufacturer’s invoice breakup

During the pendency of the petition, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs (CBIC) issued Instruction No. 23/2024-Customs (21.10.2024), clarifying that importers are not compelled to submit commercially sensitive third-party invoices

1. Whether the Commissioner of Customs has the jurisdiction to issue Public Notices that impose additional documentary requirements beyond those prescribed in Free Trade Agreements and Section 28DA of the Customs Act

2. Whether the rejection of the preferential rate of duty based on a now-superseded Public Notice and in contradiction to subsequent CBIC instructions is legally sustainable

Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides the procedure for claiming preferential duty and authorizes the proper officer to seek information to verify the country of origin

Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 (CAROTAR 2020), which governs the verification process

Section 151A of the Customs Act, noting that the power to issue instructions/directions to officers rests solely with the CBIC to ensure uniformity

Principle that provisions of a Trade Agreement prevail over domestic regulations (CAROTAR) in case of conflict, as reiterated in CBIC Instruction No. 23/2024

The Court found that the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 was passed mechanically by applying Public Notice No. 33/2024, which demanded the disclosure of "commercially sensitive information" in third-party invoicing scenarios

The Court observed that the legal basis for the rejection had "stood extinguished" because the CBIC's Instruction No. 23/2024 explicitly clarified that CAROTAR 2020 does not obligate importers to provide such confidential details

The Court questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue Public Notices that dilute or modify procedures established under international trade agreements and CBIC circulars

Since the Respondent No. 2 had subsequently issued Public Notice No. 10/2025 to align with the Board’s instructions, the original basis for denying the duty benefit no longer existed

The Court held that the assessment must be reconsidered in light of the clarified legal position and the subsequent CBIC instructions; it remanded the proceedings to Respondent No. 1 for fresh assessment of the Bills of Entry within eight weeks, directing that the assessment must comply with the prevailing law and the AIFTA notification

The Court cautioned that Commissioners must not issue Public Notices that cause "prejudicial disturbance" to smooth trade functioning without appropriate CBIC authorization