Suraj Constructions Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 26.03.2025 in which the Commissioner (Appeals), while accepting the classification of imported Clear Float Glass under CTH 7005 10 90, remanded the matter for verification of the Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) Certificate of Origin because it mentioned CTH 7005 29 90. The imports were made under a Bill of Entry dated 26.10.2022, and the appellant had claimed exemption under Sl. No. 934(I) of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
The Department initiated proceedings following an audit objection, alleging that the goods were classifiable under CTH 7005 29 90 and were therefore ineligible for the exemption. It demanded differential duty of ₹14,50,507 along with interest, ordered confiscation, imposed a redemption fine of ₹12,00,000 and a penalty under Section 114A. The adjudicating authority confirmed these actions, while the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the classification under CTH 7005 10 90 but remanded the matter solely because of the tariff heading mentioned in the Certificate of Origin.
The appellant argued that Chapter Note 2(c) of Chapter 70 covers float glass having a microscopically thin metal coating. It relied on multiple scientific reports issued by CSIR-Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute (CGCRI), an RTI clarification, earlier Tribunal decisions, and a previous Tribunal order in its own case, all of which consistently supported classification under CTH 7005 10 90. It also contended that the tariff heading stated in the PTA Certificate of Origin could not override classification determined under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
