Customs classification prevails over Certificate of Origin entry, preserving exemption and defeating consequential duty, confiscation and penalty.

Customs classification under the Customs Tariff Act prevails over the tariff code stated in a PTA Certificate of Origin, which is relevant only to origin and not to statutory classification. On the stated facts, Clear Float Glass with a microscopic tin layer was treated as classifiable under CTH 7005 10 90 under Chapter Note 2(c) of Chapter 70, supporting eligibility for Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. Once that classification was accepted, the differential duty demand collapsed and the connected confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest were unsustainable because they were consequential to the disputed classification and no misdeclaration was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tariff classification mentioned in the PTA Certificate of Origin could override the classification of imported Clear Float Glass under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and affect eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011; (ii) Whether the differential duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the tariff classification mentioned in the PTA Certificate of Origin could override the classification of imported Clear Float Glass under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and affect eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011.

Analysis: Chapter Note 2(c) of Chapter 70 governs classification under Heading 7005 by reference to the existence of a microscopically thin absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer. On the record, the goods were supported by scientific reports and prior rulings holding that float glass with a microscopic tin layer satisfies the note and falls under CTH 7005 10 90. The Certificate of Origin is relevant to origin, not to the statutory classification under Indian customs law, and a tariff code stated therein cannot displace the classification determined under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The earlier decision in the appellant's own case and the advance ruling on the same product reinforced that the mention of a different heading in the Certificate of Origin does not defeat the exemption once the goods are otherwise correctly classifiable and satisfy origin requirements.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 7005 10 90, and the PTA Certificate of Origin could not override that classification or deny the notification benefit. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest were sustainable.

Analysis: The demand, confiscation and penalty were entirely consequential to the classification dispute. Once the goods were held classifiable under CTH 7005 10 90 and eligible for the notification, the foundation of the differential duty collapsed. The record disclosed no misdescription of the goods, and the dispute was one of legal interpretation supported by scientific material and prior authorities. In such a bona fide classification controversy, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 could not survive, and interest, being accessory to the duty demand, also failed.

Conclusion: The differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest were unsustainable and were set aside. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The imported Clear Float Glass remained entitled to the preferential exemption, and all consequential fiscal and penal consequences based on the contrary classification were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs classification, the statutory heading and chapter notes prevail over the description in a Certificate of Origin, and once the imported goods are correctly classified and no misdeclaration is established, consequential duty demand, confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained.

---