( 1 ) WE are deciding this writ petition on a very limited issue confined to the facts of this case itself. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for various reliefs and particularly seeks a writ, order of direction quashing Telex/fax message No. 605/226/94-DBK dated 25 January. 1995 issued by the Member (Customs) of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, on the strength of advance licence under duty exemption scheme was entitled to import rough blocks/slabs of natural marble duty free to meet export obligations as per the scheme. Respondents say that what the petitioner imported was finished marble slabs and, thus, contravened the provisions of the Customs Act having misdeclared the goods, and that investigation and adjudication proceedings under section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the,customs Act, 1962, are pending and yet to be completed. It is stated, thereafter notice will be issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken against him. ( 4 ) WHAT the respondents can do under the Customs Act on account of alleged misdeclaration of goods by the petitioner is a separate matter. What is contended before us by the petitioner is that under a notification issued under section 25 of the (customs Act the petitioner is exempted from paying whole of the duty of customs as well as from whole of the additional duty leviable on the goods imported as per the specifications in the import licence, and that the notification also imposes, certain conditions to avail of the exemption from payment of customs duty and additional duty. One of the conditions under notification is that the importer has to make a declaration before the Assistant Collector binding himself to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable but for the exemption on the imported materials in respect of which the conditions specified in this notification had not been complied with. This being the statement of law the petitioner challenges the telex/fax message mentioned above as by this message it has been stated that bank guarantee might be necessary while releasing the goods. This being the statement of law the petitioner challenges the telex/fax message mentioned above as by this message it has been stated that bank guarantee might be necessary while releasing the goods. Petitioner says this type of condition imposed by the impugned circular cannot be imposed in view of the notification issued under section 25 of the Customs Act which specifically permits only making of a declaration as mentioned above. Mr. Shali, learned counsel for the respondents, said that the impugned circular (telex/fax message) was instructions issued under section 151-A of the Customs Act and was binding on the authorities. No one is questioning about the instructions issued by the Board under section 151-A of the Customs Act to be binding on the authorities, but these instructions cannot override the specific provisions of law. We will, therefore, agree with Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Board could not superimpose its condition of calling upon the importer to give bank guarantee when the notification under section 25 of the Customs Act merely asks for a declaration. ( 5 ) WE will, therefore, quash the impugned telex/fax message (circular) issued by the Board in so far as it directs furnishing of bank guarantee for the purpose of clearance of the goods as per notification issued under section 25 of the Customs Act and as mentioned aforesaid. This petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned above. There will be, however, no order as to costs.