M/S. SICURO GLASSTEIN PVT. LTD. vs KOLKATA-PORT

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 2

Customs Appeal No. 76015 of 2023

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/702/2023 dated 18.09.2023
rd
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 3 Floor, Custom House, 15/1,
Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001)

M/s. Sicuro Glasstein Private Limited
2A, Kaviraj Row,
Kolkata – 700 073 (West Bengal)
: Appellant

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road,
Kolkata – 700 001 (West Bengal)
: Respondent

APPEARANCE:
Shri Rathindra Nath Bandyopadhyay, Advocate,
Ms. Rupsha Chatterjee, Advocate,
For the Appellant

Shri Rajarshi Chakraborty, Authorized Representative,
For the Respondent

CORAM:
HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76588 / 2026

DATE OF HEARING: 03.11.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 05.11.2026
ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]
The instant appeal has been preferred by M/s.
Sicuro Glasstein Private Limited (hereinafter referred
to as the “appellant”) challenging Order-in-Appeal No.
KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/702/2023 dated 18.09.2023
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),
Kolkata whereby the ld. first appellate authority
sustained the re-assessment of Bill of Entry No.
8778661 dated 21.05.2022 under Customs Tariff Item
No. 7005 2990 as against Customs Tariff No. 7005

Page 2 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


1090 originally claimed, and upheld the consequential
denial of preferential tariff treatment under
Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present
dispute is that the appellant imported a consignment
declared as “Clear Float Glass of various thickness &
length” originating from Malaysia, supplied by M/s.
Kibling Group (M) SDN BHD. For clearance of the
subject goods, the appellant filed Bill of Entry No.
8778661 dated 21.05.2022, classifying the item
under Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 1090 and
claiming the benefit of 'Nil' rate of Basic Customs Duty
(BCD) under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-
Cus. dated 01.06.2011, in terms of the ASEAN-India
Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA). The Bill of Entry was
self-assessed under the EDI system and accompanied
by the requisite commercial invoices, packing lists, bill
of lading, and a valid Certificate of Origin issued under
AIFTA.
3. During the course of assessment, the Assessing
Officer attached to the Faceless Assessment Group
(FAG, INMAA 4) raised queries doubting the
classification of the imported glass, specifically
inquiring whether the product was tinted/non-tinted,
wired/non-wired, or contained an absorbent or
reflecting layer other than on the tin side. Although
the appellant furnished an Analysis Report to
substantiate its self-assessment under Heading 7005
10, the Assessing Authority reiterated its stance,
proposing re-classification under Customs Tariff Item
No. 7005 2990.
4. Thereafter, the appellant, vide letter dated
08.06.2022, submitted relevant documentation
pointing out that the declarations strictly conformed

Page 3 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


to the technical parameters certified by the overseas
supplier and also sought provisional assessment on
furnishing of PD Bond; further, to avoid prolonged
detention of the cargo, the appellant agreed to the
change in classification to Customs Tariff Item No.
7005 2990 under protest.
5. Consequently, the Proper Officer of Customs re-
assessed the subject Bill of Entry under Customs Tariff
Item No. 7005 2990, while denying the benefit of ‘Nil’
rate of BCD under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. [Sl.
No. 934].
5.1. Aggrieved by the re-assessment of the Bill of
Entry and consequent denial of the preferential
exemption under the AIFTA notification, the appellant
preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, who, vide the impugned
order dated 18.09.2023, affirmed the re-classification
of the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 7005
2990 and upheld the disallowance of the exemption
benefit.
5.2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the
present appeal.
6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that from
the details of the materials along with percentage
criterion provided by the Overseas supplier, it
transpires that the goods are non-wired and
non-tinted and thus, the reassessment of the Bill of
Entry is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that the
ld. first appellate authority has passed the impugned
order without appreciating the Certificate of Analysis
or the detailed submissions made by the appellant
before the said authority. In support the following

Page 4 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


case law, inter alia, have been relied upon by the
appellant: -
i. Chandrakala Associates [2022 (3810 E.L.T. 573
(A.A.R. – Cus. – Mum.)];
ii. Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Customs (Port), Kolkata [Final Order Nos. 77460-
77462 of 2023 dated 03.11.2023 in Customs Appeal
Nos. 75536, 75537 & 75538 of 2023 – CESTAT,
Kolkata];
iii. Rider Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Customs, Chennai [(2024) 25 Centax 384 (Tri. –
Mad.)]
6.1. In view of the above, it is the contention of the
Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the issue is no
longer res integra and the goods in question viz. Clear
Float Glass, are appropriately classifiable under
Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 1090 instead of
Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 2990 and hence, the
impugned order has no legs to stand on.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized
Representative of the Revenue justified the impugned
order.
8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the
case.
9. The crux of the dispute lies in the classification
of the imported goods declared as “Clear Float Glass
of various thickness & length”. While the appellant has
claimed classification under Customs Tariff Item No.
7005 1090 along with preferential tariff benefits under
Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, the
Revenue contends that the goods are appropriately
classifiable under Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 2990,
as affirmed in the impugned order. Therefore, the
short question that arises for our determination is

Page 5 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


whether the material available on record is sufficient
to justify the re-classification adopted by the
Revenue.
10. At the outset, a perusal of the Certificate of
Analysis furnished by the overseas supplier, M/s.
Kibling Group (M) SDN BHD, Malaysia, clearly records
that the product in question is non-wired glass
possessing an absorbent non-reflecting layer. The
same is reproduced below for better appreciation of
the facts:-

Page 6 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


10.1. Further, the technical literature and product
specifications of the goods pertaining to the supplier,
as placed on record, establish that the imported glass
bears a tin coating, confirming the presence of the
bottom/tin surface layer. No cogent evidence to the
contrary has been brought on record by the Revenue.
In this context, we note that although the impugned
order records that remnant samples were drawn by
the Shed Officer and forwarded to CSIR, Kolkata for
chemical testing, the record is completely silent as to
the outcome of such testing, nor has any test report
been produced by the Revenue before us to disprove
the manufacturer's analytical specifications.
11. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the
factual parameters provided by the manufacturer
remain unrefuted. Consequently, we hold the
imported goods merit classification under Customs
Tariff Item 7005 1090 as self-assessed by the
importer.
12. Even considering the Revenue’s reliance on
Circular No. 23/2024-Customs dated November 14,
2024 to contend that the tin coating cannot be
considered towards classification under Heading 7005
10, we find that the subject import pertains to Bill of
Entry No. 8778661 dated 21.05.2022, which is prior
to the issuance of the said Circular. Thus, the said
circular in any case cannot be applied retrospectively
in respect of the import in question.
13. Moreover, we also take note of the fact that,
during the said period, it has been consistently held in
a catena of decisions that the microscopic layer of tin
absorbed during the molten tin bath float process
physically functions as an absorbent layer, thereby
bringing float glass of this description under Customs

Page 7 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


Tariff Item No. 7005 1090. In the case of Bagrecha
Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port),
Kolkata [Final Order Nos. 77460-77462 of 2023 dated
03.11.2023 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75536, 75537 &
75538 of 2023 – CESTAT, Kolkata], while dealing with
imports from the very same supplier viz. M/s. Kibing
Group (M) SDN BHD, Malaysia, the Bench opined that
the goods are appropriately classifiable under
Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 1090. The relevant
portion of the said order is reproduced below: -
“16. We find that there is no dispute that the
impugned goods is non-wired glass. By conjoint
reading of the above note 2(c) and the
manufacturing process, it can be inferred that CFG
would have microscopical layer of metal, namely tin,
which is an absorbent layer as contemplated under
the above said Chapter Note 2(c). Hence, the correct
classification of the impugned goods is under CTH
7005 1090 of Customs Tariff Act.
17. We further find that the manufacturers in India
of the identical goods namely M/s. Saint-Gobain
India Pvt.Ltd., M/s. Goldplus Float Glass are
manufacturing and clearing CFG under CTH
70051090 of the CTA and the same has been
accepted by the department.
18. We further find that the impugned proceedings
were initiated against the appellant on the basis of
Audit Para holding that the Float Glass invariably a
layer of Tin on one side, which does not mean that
all Float Glass to be classifiable under 7009 1090.
19. We find that the appellant sought reply under
RTI dated 17.07.2023, wherein the question was
raised that it is observed that in some of the Report,
no other layer other than Tin layer is found on one
side of the Glass which is fluorescent is mentioned.
Whether such layers are reflective or not-reflective
and whether such layers are absorbent or not? The
reply is given as (a) not-reflective and (b) absorbent
(UV).
20. If the same is considered then the said
clarification is satisfying the Chapter Note 2(c) of
Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act and the said

Page 8 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


Report has not been relied upon by the adjudicating
authority while adjudicating the case. Therefore, the
impugned order is bad in law.
21. We further take note of the fact that in the case
of M/s. Suraj Constructions (supra), the Advance
Ruling Authority has examined the issue and
observed as under: -
"7. I have considered all the materials placed
before me for the subject goods. I have gone
through the submissions made by the
applicant during personal hearing and the
comments of the jurisdictional Principal
Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs, on
the impugned subject matter. The subject
goods for which advance ruling has been
sought, their characteristics, manufacturing
process, utility etc. are already mentioned in
the aforementioned paras. The subject goods
are clear float glass, with an absorbent layer,
which is fluorescent under UV illumination.
The subject goods are not wired, tinted or
green in colour. The heading 7005 10 covers
non-wired glasses having an absorbent,
reflecting or non-reflecting layer and the
headings 7005 21 to 7005 29 deal with non-
wired glasses which are tinted having
absorbent layer, opacified, flashed etc.
Therefore, the subject goods are
appropriately covered under sub-heading
7005 1090. Based on the applicant's
submission about the country of origin and
the manufacturer of the subject goods,
benefits under sr.no.934 of the table annexed
to the exemption notification no.46/2011-
Cus., dated 01.06.2011, would be available,
subject to the condition that in respect of each
case of import, the applicant would have to
produce evidence before the
Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs
as to the origin of subject goods.
8. On the issue of whether the benefit of the
said exemption would be available even if the
sub-heading mentioned in the COO differs for
70051090, the applicant & their authorized
representative were asked to explain the
context of the said question. It appears that
the subject goods are being exported from
Malaysia under its code 70052990. The

Page 9 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


applicant has submitted a copy of the letter
ref. no. MITI.700-2/26 Jld.6(38) dated
30.04.2021 from the Director of Trade and
Industry Cooperation, Ministry of
International Trade and Industry (MITI,
hereinafter), stating that they had been
requesting the clear float glass exporters to
provide an advance ruling/document of the
Government of India or from Royal Malaysian
Customs confirming the correct HS code. It
appears that M/s. Kibing Group (M) Sdn. Bhd.
has obtained a letter from the Royal
Malaysian Customs dated 12.03.2021
confirming the classification of clear float
glass under HS code 7005.10.09, and
therefore, MITI has allowed KGM to apply for
a COO with exporting and importing HS code
of 70051090. This letter goes on to state that
unless M/s. Xinyi produces a similar
document, their application with different
exporting and importing tariff code cannot be
approved."
22. Further, in the case of M/s. Chandrakala
Associates (supra), again the Advance Ruling
Authority has examined the issue and observed as
under:-
…
24. As from the facts of the case, it is clear that the
Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant are
absorbent and having non-reflecting layer, in that
circumstances, the appellant has qualified the merit
classification under CTH 7005 1090, therefore, we
hold the correct classification of the Clear Float Glass
imported by the appellant under the impugned Bills
of Entry is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090.
Consequently, the appellant is entitled for benefit of
Serial No.934 (1) of Notification No.046/2011-CUS
dated 01.06.2011.”
13.1. A similar view has also been expressed in the
case of Rider Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [(2024) 5 Centax
384 (Tri. – Mad.)] wherein the issue was decided in
favour of the importer.

Page 10 of 10

Appeal No.: C/76015/2023-DB


14. Therefore, we find that the issue is no longer res
integra. In view of the above discussions and by
respectfully following the judicial precedents cited
supra, we hold that the goods imported by the
appellant under Bill of Entry No. 8778661 dated
21.05.2022 are rightly classifiable under Customs
Tariff Item No. 7005 1090, as claimed by the
appellant, and are eligible for the consequential
preferential ‘nil’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in
terms of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated
01.06.2011, as claimed.
15. The re-assessment of the subject Bill of Entry
under Customs Tariff Item No. 7005 2990 is
accordingly not sustainable and therefore, the same is
set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set
aside.
16. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if
any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 05.11.2026 )



(R. MURALIDHAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)



(K. ANPAZHAKAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sdd