Kolkata CESTAT Holds Malaysian Clear Float Glass Eligible for Nil AIFTA Duty, as Customs Produced No Test Report to Dispute Supplier Specs

The appellant imported clear float glass from Malaysia and self-assessed it under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 7005 1090, claiming the nil Basic Customs Duty benefit under Serial No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. (AIFTA).

The assessing authority re-classified the goods under CTI 7005 2990 and denied the preferential rate; the appellant had agreed to that classification under protest to avoid prolonged detention of the cargo.

The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the re-assessment, prompting this appeal.

The Tribunal applied the tariff classification framework under Chapter 70, including Chapter Note 2(c), which treats non-wired glass with an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer as falling within heading 7005 10; it contrasted this with the relevant classification of other non-wired glass under headings 7005 21 to 7005 29.

It also applied Serial No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., under which qualifying goods of the relevant classification may receive preferential nil BCD, subject to applicable origin requirements.

The Tribunal followed Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, which classified comparable clear float glass from the same supplier under CTI 7005 1090, and referred to Chandrakala Associates and Rider Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. as supporting decisions.

It further held that Circular No. 23/2024-Customs, issued after the import in question, could not be applied retrospectively to it.

The supplier’s Certificate of Analysis described the imported glass as non-wired and as having an absorbent, non-reflecting layer; the supplier’s technical literature also indicated a tin coating on the glass.

Customs produced no contrary test report, although samples had reportedly been sent for testing, and the record did not disclose the test results.

In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal accepted the manufacturer’s specifications and found that the goods met the description for CTI 7005 1090.

It also relied on the treatment of comparable goods in Bagrecha Enterprises and the other cited decisions, and rejected reliance on the later-issued circular for this 2022 import.

On that classification, the goods qualified for the claimed notification benefit.

It set aside the re-assessment under CTI 7005 2990 and the impugned appellate order, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.