Clear Float Glass classification under heading 7005 upheld, enabling customs exemption and defeating extended limitation.

Clear Float Glass imported from Malaysia was held classifiable under tariff item 70051090 because heading 7005, read with Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, covers non-wired glass with a microscopically thin absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, and the tin layer on the glass satisfied that description. On that classification, the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus was available, subject to the origin documentation relied on for the imports. The extended period of limitation was not invocable because the record showed a bona fide classification dispute and no positive suppression or wilful misstatement, so confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Clear Float Glass imported from Malaysia was classifiable under tariff item 70051090 or under tariff item 70052990; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011; and (iii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked, with consequential confiscation, fine and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether Clear Float Glass imported from Malaysia was classifiable under tariff item 70051090 or under tariff item 70052990.

Analysis: The relevant tariff scheme for heading 7005, read with Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, covers non-wired glass having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, and the note explains that such layer means a microscopically thin coating of metal or chemical compound. The test material and the manufacturing process showed a thin tin layer on one side of the glass, and the record did not disclose any legal requirement that the layer must be a separately applied coating on a particular side of the glass. The reasoning adopted in earlier identical matters was followed, and the departmental objection that the tin layer was merely an inevitable manufacturing phenomenon was not accepted.

Conclusion: The imported Clear Float Glass was correctly classifiable under tariff item 70051090, and not under tariff item 70052990.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Analysis: The notification benefit was linked to the correct tariff classification and the country of origin conditions. Once the goods were held to fall under tariff item 70051090, the exemption entry became applicable, subject to the origin documentation already relied upon for the imports.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked, with consequential confiscation, fine and penalty.

Analysis: The record showed a long-standing classification practice, provisional assessment followed by finalisation in earlier imports, and no finding of positive suppression or wilful misstatement by the appellant. A bona fide dispute on classification, without proof of deliberate concealment, could not justify invocation of the extended period, and the consequential demands, confiscation and penalties could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable, and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits and on limitation, the reassessment order was set aside, and the import classification and exemption claim were accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under heading 7005, the presence of a microscopically thin tin layer satisfying Chapter Note 2(c) is sufficient, and in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in a bona fide classification dispute.

---