Clear Float Glass From Malaysia Classifiable Under 7005 1090 With AIFTA Benefit: CESTAT Kolkata

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata restored an importer’s classification of clear float glass and its free trade agreement exemption, holding a 2024 circular inapplicable to a 2022 import.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that clear float glass imported from Malaysia was correctly self‑assessed under tariff item 7005 1090 and is eligible for nil basic customs duty (BCD) under the ASEAN‑India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA), and that a 2024 circular cannot apply to an earlier import [Sicuro Glasstein Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, 2026-juristway.com-3371-CESTAT(Kolkata)-Customs].

K. Anpazhakan, Member (Technical), wrote the order for a Bench with R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial). The importer filed a bill of entry dated 21 May 2022, claiming nil BCD under Serial No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011‑Customs dated 1 Jun 2011 with a valid certificate of origin. The faceless assessment group doubted the classification, and the importer accepted reassessment under tariff item 7005 2990 under protest to avoid detention of the cargo. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reassessment and the denial of the exemption.

Heading 7005 10 covers non‑wired glass having an absorbent, reflecting or non‑reflecting layer. The supplier’s certificate of analysis recorded that the glass was non‑wired with an absorbent, non‑reflecting layer, and its technical literature showed a tin coating from the float process.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue had produced no contrary evidence. Samples had been sent for chemical testing, but no test report was placed on record to disprove the manufacturer’s specifications, so those specifications stood unrefuted.

The Revenue relied on Circular No. 23/2024‑Customs dated 14 Nov 2024, which says the tin coating cannot be considered for classification under Heading 7005 10. The Tribunal held that the circular, issued after the import, could not be applied retrospectively. It also noted a consistent line of decisions treating the tin layer absorbed in the float process as an absorbent layer, including Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata (Final Order Nos. 77460‑77462 of 2023) on imports from the same supplier.

Holding the issue no longer res integra, the Tribunal set aside the reassessment and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

2026-juristway.com-3371-CESTAT(Kolkata)-Customs