Clear float glass classification under specific tariff heading allowed exemption and defeated extended limitation.

Clear float glass with a microscopically thin tin layer was held classifiable under CTH 70051090 as non-wired glass having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, rather than the residuary CTH 70052990. On that classification, the exemption under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus became available, and the recorded Malaysian origin and supporting certificate satisfied the origin requirement. The dispute was treated as a tariff-interpretation issue, so absent positive suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement, the extended limitation period could not be invoked; the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant was classifiable under CTH 70051090 or CTH 70052990; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation and consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were invokable.

Issue (i): Whether Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant was classifiable under CTH 70051090 or CTH 70052990.

Analysis: The classification turned on Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, which explains that an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer means a microscopically thin coating of metal or a chemical compound. The record showed that the imported glass had a thin tin layer, was non-wired and non-tinted, and the test material referred to an absorbent and non-reflective layer. The mere fact that the layer arose during manufacture did not justify shifting the goods to the residuary heading. The heading for non-wired glass having such a layer was treated as the more specific entry.

Conclusion: The imported Clear Float Glass was classifiable under CTH 70051090 and not under CTH 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: Once the goods were held to fall under CTH 70051090, the exemption linked to the relevant ASEAN notification became available, subject to proof of origin through the prescribed certificate and supporting documents. The materials on record showed Malaysian origin and compliance with the origin documentation relied upon by the appellant.

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 and consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were invokable.

Analysis: The dispute was one of classification based on interpretation of the tariff entry and chapter note. The department was already aware of the product and, in part, the bills of entry had been provisionally assessed and later finalised. In the absence of positive suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement, the extended period could not be invoked. Once the demand itself failed, the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties also could not survive.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported clear float glass bears a microscopically thin tin layer that answers Chapter Note 2(c), it falls under the specific tariff entry for non-wired glass having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, and a classification dispute of this nature does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period absent suppression or wilful misstatement.

---