Classification of clear float glass with a tin layer under Chapter 70 determined exemption eligibility and defeated extended-period demand.

Clear float glass with a thin tin layer was analysed under Chapter 70, with the Tribunal's reasoning turning on whether the layer answered the Chapter Note definition of an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting coating. On that basis, the goods were treated as classifiable under tariff item 70051090 rather than 70052990, bringing them within the scope of the relevant exemption entry, subject to origin conditions. The dispute also addressed limitation: because the department had earlier finalised provisional assessments on the same test reports and there was no material of suppression or wilful misdeclaration, the extended period could not be invoked. Demand, penalty, redemption fine and confiscation were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clear float glass imported by the appellant was correctly classifiable under tariff item 70051090 or re-classifiable under tariff item 70052990 under Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (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 invocation of the extended period and the consequential demand, penalty and confiscation were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether clear float glass imported by the appellant was correctly classifiable under tariff item 70051090 or re-classifiable under tariff item 70052990 under Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The tariff entry for heading 7005 covers float glass with an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer, and Chapter Note 2(c) defines such layer as a microscopically thin coating of metal or chemical compound that imparts the relevant optical qualities. The record showed that the imported goods were non-wired and non-tinted float glass with a thin tin layer on one side, and the test reports of the notified laboratory recorded that the tin side was detected, that an absorbent layer was observed, and that the layer was non-reflective. The Tribunal held that the tariff heading and chapter note do not require the layer to be on any particular side or to be created only by a separate post-manufacture coating process. The reasoning adopted in the appellant's own earlier case and the advance rulings on identical goods supported the same view.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under tariff item 70051090 and the re-classification under tariff item 70052990 was unsustainable.

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 tariff item 70051090, they fell within the scope of the exemption entry at Sl. No. 934. The Tribunal also noted that the earlier provisional assessments had been finalized on the basis of test reports accepting the same classification, and the origin-based exemption could not be denied merely on the basis of the disputed re-classification.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, subject to compliance with the origin conditions under the applicable preferential origin rules.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the extended period and the consequential demand, penalty and confiscation were sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the dispute arose from an audit objection and that the department had itself finalized earlier provisional assessments in favour of the appellant on the same product after testing. In these circumstances, there was no basis to infer suppression or wilful misdeclaration, and the extended period could not be invoked. Since the demand was not sustainable on merits and limitation, the penalty and confiscation based on the same foundation also could not survive.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was not sustainable, and the demand, penalty, redemption fine and confiscation were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant obtained complete relief on classification, exemption and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under heading 7005, the existence of a microscopically thin absorbent or non-reflective tin layer on float glass is sufficient where the tariff entry and chapter note do not prescribe a particular side or a post-manufacture coating process, and a demand based on a contrary interpretation cannot sustain the extended period or consequential penal action in the absence of suppression.

---