CAAR Mumbai Classifies Semi-Manufactured Gold Under Heading 7108, Declines to Rule on DGFT Import Restrictions

In re Kolawar Multi Comm Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)

Material Facts

The applicant sought an advance ruling regarding the import of gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars. The application requested rulings on:

• Classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
• Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 when imported from countries listed in Appendix I and Appendix II.
• The effect of DGFT Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19.05.2025, which placed tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 under the “Restricted” category permitting imports only through nominated agencies.

Procedural History

The application was filed before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. The jurisdictional Commissionerate was requested to provide comments but none were received. A personal hearing was held, after which the applicant filed additional written submissions.

Legal Issues

The Authority considered:

• Whether gold in semi-manufactured forms is classifiable under Heading 7108 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
• Whether such goods are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011.
• Whether the Authority could determine the effect of Foreign Trade Policy restrictions and the applicant’s contention that such restrictions should not apply to imports from ASEAN countries.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

The ruling referred to:

• Sections 28H and 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including Heading 7108 and sub-heading 710813.
• General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff.
• Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011.
• DGFT Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19.05.2025.
• Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009.
• Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Applicant’s Submissions

The applicant submitted that:

• Gold in semi-manufactured forms including sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars is classifiable under Heading 7108 and sub-heading 710813.
• The goods fall within Sl. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs and are eligible for preferential customs duty when imported from countries listed in Appendix I or Appendix II, subject to compliance with the applicable Rules of Origin.
• The DGFT restrictions amounted to non-tariff measures inconsistent with the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement and therefore should not prevent imports eligible under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs.
• Reliance was placed on Article 51(c) of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement, and Supreme Court decisions concerning treaty interpretation.

Authority’s Findings and Reasoning

Maintainability

The Authority held that:

• Questions relating to classification and applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs fall within Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• The applicant’s challenge to the validity, legality or treaty consistency of the Foreign Trade Policy restrictions falls outside the statutory jurisdiction of the Authority.
• The Authority cannot examine the validity of the Foreign Trade Policy, DGFT notifications, compatibility of domestic policy with international treaties, or constitutional issues in advance ruling proceedings.

Classification

The Authority found that:

• Heading 7108 expressly covers gold in unwrought or semi-manufactured forms.
• HSN Explanatory Notes support inclusion of sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars within Heading 7108.
• The proposed imports are intermediate forms of gold and not finished articles.
• Accordingly, the goods are classifiable under Heading 7108 and, depending upon purity and specifications, under the appropriate tariff item of sub-heading 710813.

Applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs

The Authority observed that:

• Goods classifiable under Heading 7108 fall within Sl. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs.
• Eligibility for the preferential tariff treatment is subject to the conditions prescribed in the notification.
• The importer must establish that the goods originate from countries listed in Appendix I or Appendix II in accordance with the applicable Rules of Origin.
• Compliance with documentary and procedural requirements under the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act and applicable notifications remains necessary.
• The notification only governs preferential customs duty treatment and does not dispense with compliance with other statutory requirements governing imports.

Import Policy Restrictions

The Authority held that:

• The import restrictions originate from the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy.
• Determining the validity, enforceability or treaty consistency of those restrictions falls outside the Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 28H.
• Eligibility for preferential customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs and compliance with import policy conditions operate independently.
• Satisfaction of one does not dispense with compliance with the other.

Final Ruling

The Authority ruled that:

• Gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars and similar forms is classifiable under Heading 7108 and the appropriate tariff item of sub-heading 710813 depending upon purity and specifications.
• Such goods fall within Sl. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs and are eligible for preferential tariff treatment subject to fulfilment of the notification’s conditions, including compliance with the applicable Rules of Origin.
• No ruling was rendered on the applicant’s challenge to the Foreign Trade Policy restrictions or on whether those restrictions apply to the applicant, as those issues fall outside the Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
• Compliance with the Foreign Trade Policy and other import laws is to be determined independently by the competent authorities.

Cases Discussed

• Union of India vs Agricas LLP (Supreme Court), 2020 (373) E.L.T. 752 (S.C.)
• Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.M. Exports (Supreme Court), 2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI

Kolawar Multi Comm Private Limited (having IEC No. AAKCK87531′) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’. in short) filed application (CAAR-1) for advance ruling before the Customs Authority Thr Advance Rulings ‘Mumbai (CAAR in short). The said application was” received in the secretariat of the CAAR. Mumbai on 12.12.2025 along with enclosures •in terms of Section 2811 (1) of the Customs Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ also).

The applicant is filing the present application to seek advance ruling on the JISN classification, of the gold in the semi manufactured form, (subject goods), and its eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011. The subject goods comprise of semi manufactured forms of gold including sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars etc.?

3. Submission by Applicant-

3.1 Kolawar Multi Comm Private I.imitcd, is a company venturing into Exports Imports business of Gold Articles. Gold Jewellery and other Items of Chapter 71of the first schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975_; and to accomplish this the applicant needs to import gold in the semi manufactured forms.

3.2 The applicant is filing the present. application to seek advance ruling on the I ISN classification. of the gold in the semi manufactured form, and its eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 46/201 1-Customs dated 01.06.2011. The • subject goods comprise of semi manufactured Forms of gold including sheets, plates, wires, rods; bars etc.

3.3 The applicant is of the understanding that the subject goods arc classifiable under CT!! 7108, and that the subject goods arc eligible for the duty benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011(as amended), when imported from countries listed in the APPENDIX I, II of the said Notification.

4. Applicant’s interpretation of Law:-

4.1 The present application seeking advance ruling is maintainable

4.1.1 The applicant submitted that the present application is maintainable as the advance ruling is sought on the questions of (a) classification of goods i.c, whether the subject goods are classifiable under CITI 7108, (b) applicability of notification i.c, whether the subject goods are eligible for the duty benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011.

4.1.2 The applicant humbly states that the question of classification, and applicability of the notification have not been already raised and pending or decided by any officer of Customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. The questions of classification and the applicability of a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 25 arc admissible questions in an application for Advance Ruling as per clauses (a) and (b) respectively of sub-section (2) of Section 281-1 of the Customs Act, 1962. the reform. this application is maintainable and admissible by the Authority for Advance Ruling. under the provisions of the Customs Act.

4.1.3 It is submitted that as per Section 2811; of the Customs Act, 1962, “advance ruling^– means a decision on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 2811 raised by the applicant in his application in respect of goods prior to its importation or exportation.

4.1.4 The above definition makes it clear that advance ruling as a facility is available on specified questions in respect of goods prior to its importation. The applicant is seeking to undertake importation of the subject goods on which the queries of classification and application of notification issued under section 25(1) have been raised and is therefore eligible to seek advance ruling and the present application is maintainable.

4.1.5 The applicant has paid the applicable fee of Rs. 10000 in the form Of demand draft drawn in favor of “Customs Authority fbr Advance Rulings, Mathai payable at Mumbai.

4.2 Gold in the semi manufactured forms is classifiable under CTII 7108 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

4.2.1 The subject goods comprise of semi manufactured forms of gold including Sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars etc.

4.2.2 The relevant portion of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is extracted below;

7108	GOLD (INCLUDING GOLD PLATED WITH PLATINUM) UNWROUGHT OR IN SEMI-MANUFACTURED FORMS, OR IN POWDER FORM
	Non-monetary:
7108 11 00	Powder
7108 12 00	Other unwrought forms
7108 13 00	Other semi-manufactured forms
7108 20 00	Monetary

4.2.3 The Rule 1 of General Rules for the Interpretation (GIR) ()Nile Harmonized System. mandates that goods shall be classified according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the instant case, the terms of Heading 7108 unequivocally include semi-manufactured forms of gold.

4.2.4 The application of GIR 3, reinforces this position by prioritizing the heading that offers the most specific description. As I leading 7108 is tailored exclusively to gold in its unwrought, semi-manufactured, or powder states, in contrast to the more general provisions for metals or fttbricated articles in other chapters.

4.2.5 The subheading 71081310, encompasses semi-manufactured forms containing 99.5 percent or more by weight of gold, and subheading 71081390 contains other brims.

4.2.6 The import policy of the subject goods was amended by Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19 May, 2025. The amended import policy is extracted below.

710813	Other semi-manufactured forms:	—	—
71081300	Non-monetary: Other semi-manufactured forms	Deleted	—
71081310	Containing 99.5 per cent. or more by weight of gold	Restricted	Import is allowed only through nominated agencies as notified by RBI (in case of banks) and DGFT (for other agencies).
71081390	Other	Restricted	Import is allowed only through nominated agencies as notified by RBI (in case of banks) and DGFT (for other agencies).

4.2.7 It can be seen that the Subheading 71081300 is deleted and the import policy of both 71081310 and 71081390 is ^–Restricted”, and the import is allowed only through nominated agencies notified by RBI and DC1FT.

4.2.8 The relevant portion of the explanatory note on how to Read Import Policy given in the DGFT website is reproduced below:

3	Policy:	This Column gives the Import Policy regime applicable on the item. Generally, the Import Policy regime is one of the following.
		Prohibited Import of items is not permitted. Restricted Import of items is permitted under an Import Licence / Authorisation / Permission granted by the DGFT. Application for import of ‘Restricted’ items may be made in ANF 2B, as per details policy / procedure prescribed in Chapter 2 of FTP and HBP Vol.

4.2.9 It can be understood that the Import Policy is “Restricted” when the import of the item is permitted under an import license/ Authorisation / permission granted by the Mill’.

4.3 Subject goods are eligible for the duty benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 (as amended), when imported from countries listed in the APPENDIX I, II of the Notification.

4.3.1 India is a signatory to the Agreement on Trade in Goods under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Republic of India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), commonly referred to as lndia-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement.

4.3.2 To give effect to this Free Trade Agreement, Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated. 01.06.2011 as amended from time to time has been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue by invoking the powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of which Customs Duties leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs ‘rani II Act, 1975 has been exempted to the extent as mentioned for the goods described in Column 3 at the rates mentioned in Columns (4 & 5) in percentage unless otherwise specified.

4.3.3 At Si. No. 966 of the amended notification, customs duty exemption applicable to all the goods falling under 7103 99 to 7118 90 have been specified. I ISN 7108 13 00 is also covered in this entry.

4.3.4 The relevant part of the Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated. 01.06.2011 (as amended) is extracted below:

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 153/2009-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2009 [G.S.R. 944(E), dated the 31st December, 2009], except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods of the description as specified in column (3) of the Table appended hereto and falling under the Chapter, Heading, Sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in—

• • • column (4) of the said Table, when imported into the Republic of India from a country listed in APPENDIX-I; or
    • column (5) of the said Table, when imported into the Republic of India from a country listed in APPENDIX-II.

Provided that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in [Appendix I or Appendix II, as the case may be], in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December, 2009:

Provided further that the exemption specified in Sl. No. 31A of the said Table shall not apply to the goods imported into the Republic of India from the countries listed in Appendix I other than Myanmar.

S. No	Chapter, Heading, Sub- heading and Tariff item	Description	Rate (in percentage unless otherwise specified)
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
966	710399 to 711890	All goods	0. 0	0.0

APPENDIX I

S. No.	Name of the Country	S. No.	Name of the Country
1.	Malaysia	2.	Singapore
3.	Thailand	4.	Vietnam
5.	Myanmar	6.	Indonesia
7.	Brunei Darussalam	8.	Lao People’s Democratic Republic
9.	Cambodia

APPENDIX II

S. No.	Name of the Country
1.	Philippines

4.3.5 This ditty exemption can he availed, provided that the importer proves that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in Appendix I. in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association. of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31 st December 2009.

4.3.6 Therefore, the subject goods are eligible for the duty benefit under S. No 966 of the Notification No, 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 (as amended by Notification No. 38/ 2014 ­Customs dated 29.12.2014).• when imported from countries listed in the APPENDIX 1, It of the Notification, and satisfies the Country-of-origin criteria.

4.3.7 This also implies that, even i [the import policy of gold under CTI I 7108 is read as “restricted” such restriction will not apply to imports from the AIFTA countries. This is because the importers cannot he denied benefit given under the India-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement through Non-tariff Measures.

4.3.8 Article 5 I (c) of the Constitution of India gives that :

“The State shall endeavour to —

(0 ‘Oster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another:^–

4.3.9 Article 8 of the India-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement reads as follows;

Article 8

Non-Tariff Measures

1. Each Party shall:

(a) not institute or maintain ally non-tariff measure on the importation of goods from the other Parties or on the export or sale for export of goods destined for the territory of the other Parties, except in accordance with its WTO rights and obligations or other provisions in this Agreement; and

(b) ensure the transparency of its non-tariff measures allowed under subparagraph (a) and their full compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement with a view to minimizable distortions to the maximum extent possible.

4.3.10 Non-tariff measures are generally defined as “policy measures other than ordinary customs tariffs that can potentially have an economic effect on international trade in goods, changing quantities traded, or prices or both.

4.3.11 The INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF NON-TARIFF MEASURES, published by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). classifies various non-tariff measures.

4.3.12 The chapter E provides the Non-Automatic Import Licensing, Quotas, Prohibitions, Quantity-Control Measures and Other Restrictions, These are the Control measures generally aimed at prohibiting or restricting imports. including measures restraining the quantity of goods that can he imported, regardless of whether they come from different sources or a specific supplier. The approval may either be granted on a discretionary basis or may require specific criteria to he met before it is granted. The relevant entries arc reproduced below:

El Non-automatic import-licensing procedures other than authorizations covered under the chapters on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical harriers to trade

EI Licensing for economic reasons

E11 Licensing procedure with no specific ex ante criteria Licensing procedure where approval is granted at the discretion of the issuing authority. This measure is also referred to as a discretionary licence.

Example: Imports of textile products are subject to a discretionary licence.

………………

E119 Licensing for economic reasons not elsewhere .specified

4.3.13 The “restricted” import policy of gold ,falls under the above calegory because it Functions as a non-automatic import licensing procedure. Approval to import is not automatic: it is granted only to a pre-approved closed list of “nominated agencies”. There are no published quantitative or objective criteria that any new applicant can meet to get the license. This is a direct control measure aimed at constraining the volume of gold entering the country, and therefore is a Licensing for economic reasons.

4.3.14 Further’ Chapter gives Measures Affecting Competition which are measures granting exclusive or special preferences or privileges to one or more limited groups of economic operators. The relevant entries are listed below:

III State-trading enterprises, for importing; other selective import channels

• • • 1111 State-trading enterprises for importing

Enterprises (whether or not State-owned or -controlled) with special rights’ and privileges not available to other entities, which influence through their purchases and sales the level or direction of imports of particular products.

Such enterprises , include statutory marketing boards with exclusive rights to control the imports of certain grains, canalizing agencies with an exclusive right to distribute petroleum, sole importing agencies or importation reserved for specific importers regarding certain categories of goody.

• • • 1119 Other selective import channels not elsewhere specified
    • 112 Compulsory use of national services
    • 1129 Compulsory national service not elsewhere specified
    • 119 Measures affecting competition not elsewhere specified

4.3.15 _The import policy grant8 “exclusive or special preferences or privileges” to a “limited group of economic operators” i.e. the nominated agencies. By reserving the right of importation solely to nominated agencies, the direction of trade is influenced and fair competition is denied for all other potential importers. This makes the import policy fall under the abovementioned classification.

4.3.16 Therefore, amendment to the Foreign Trade Policy from “Free” to “Restricted” category amounts to imposing non- tariff measures in violation of India-.ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement. They cannot negate the benefit of exemption granted under Notification No. 46/2011 Customs dated. 01.06.2011, as amended.

4.3.17 Such non-tariff barriers are completely illegal and cannot be sustained in view of multiple judicial precedents including Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.111 Exports, 2015 (324) E.L.T.209(S.C.), in which the I lon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“23. A conspectus of^. the aforesaid authorities would lead to the following conclusions:

(1) Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India is a Directive Principle of State Policy which states that the Stale shall endeavour to _.fester respect for international law and treaty obligations. As a result, rules of international law which are not contrary to domestic, law are, followed by the courts in this comity. This is a situation in which there is an international treaty to which India is not a ,signatory or general rules of international law are made applicable. It is in this situation that f there happens to he a conflict between domestic law and international law, domestic law will prevail.

(2) In a situation where India is a signatory nation to an international treaty, and a statute is passed pursuant to the said treaty, it is a legitimate aid to the construction of the provisions of such statute that are vague or ambiguous to have recourse to the terms of the treaty to resolve such ambiguity in_. favour of a meaning that is consistent with the provisions tithe treaty.

(3) In a situation where India is a signatory nation to an international treaty, and a statute is made in furtherance of such treaty, a purposive rather than a narrow literal construction of such statute is preferred. The interpretation of such a statute should be construedJuL on bards principles of general acceptance rather than earlier domestic precedents, being intended to carry out treaty obligations, and not to be inconsistent with them.

(4) In a situation in which India is a signatory nation to an international treaty, and a statute is made to enforce a treaty obligation, and if there be any difference between, the language of such statute and a corresponding provision of the the stander language should be construed in the same sense as that of the treaty, This is ,for the reason that in such cases what is sought to be achieved by the international treaty is a uniform international code of law which is to be applied by the courts of all the signatory nations in a manner that leads to the same result in all the signatory nations.”

4.3.18 In Union of India vs Agricas LLP – 2020 (373) B.L.T. 752 (S.C.), the Apex Court, observed as follows:

“27. Thus, breach of a stipulation in international law cannot he justified by the State by referring to its domestic legal position. This rule of international law is unexceptionable and prosaic, as the contra view would permit the international obligations to be evaded by the simple method of domestic legislation, executive action or judicial decision. Contracting States are under an obligation to act in conformity with the rules of international law and hear responsibility for breaches whether committed by the Legislature, executive or even judiciary. In a way, therefore, international treaties are constraint on sovereign activity, albeit voluntarily agreed. ”

4.3.19 The above decisions would clearly show that if India is a signatory nation to an^–international treaty, and a statute or a notification is made in furtherance of such treaty, the interpretation of such a statute should be construed in a way that is intended to carry out treaty obligations, and not to be inconsistent with them. If there are any difference between the language of such statute and a corresponding provision of the treaty, the statutory language should he construed in the same sense as that of the treaty.

4.3.20 The imposition of a “Restricted” import policy by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) on gold (CTI I 7108), which mandates import only through specified “nominated agencies”, would be a Non-Tariff Measure that fundamentally undermines the trade liberalization commitment made under the India-ASEAN FTA Trade in Goods Agreement. This mandatory channeling requirement illegally curtails market access by the importers and operates as a non-automatic import licensing procedure and as a measure affecting the competition.

The import policy of the goods mentioned, in the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011, when imported from countries listed in the Appendix I of the same notification is to be read as “FREE”. If such imports are restricted, it would amount to imposition of Non-tariff measure, and hence illegal in view of the Free Trade Agreement and the Judicial decisions mentioned above.

4.3.21 Therefore, the subject goods are eligible for the duty benefit under Notification No. 46/20 Customs dated 01.06.2011(as amended), and the Import policy of such goods, when imported from countries in the APPENDIX I, 11 of Notification No. 46/2011-Ctistoms dated 01.062011 is “FREE”, provided the goods adhere to the provisions of the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the. Preferential, Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009.

5. Port of Import and reply from jurisdictional Comniissioncratc:

The applicant in their CAAR-1^– indicated that they intend to import the subject goods from 0/o the Principal Commissioner of Customs. Air Cargo Complex, Kempcgowda International Airport, Devanahalli, Rengaluru, Karnataka. The application was forwarded to the jurisdiction of 0/o the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli, I3engaluru, Karnataka, for comments on 22.12.2025, 08.01.2026,28.01.2026 and 16:02.2026. I lowever, no comments were received from the said commissionerate.

6. Details of Personal Hearing:

A personal hearing in this matter was conducted on .04.06.2025 at 11:30am. Advocate of Applicant raised question whether he is eligible for benefit under Notification 46/2011 to import Semi manufactured Gold especially in backdrop where DGFT vide notification has restricted import of semi manufactured Goods only through nominated agencies.

No one from department appeared. Additional submission to he mailed by Advocate.

7. The applicant. made the following additional submission over mail on 04.06.2026 and inter-alia submitted as follows:

7.1 Classification

Gold in the semi-manufactured forms is classifiable under CTEI 7108, and subheading 710813 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The subject goods comprise of semi-manufactured forms of gold including sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars etc. Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation mandates that goods shall be classified according to the terms of the headings. The terms of I leading 7108 unequivocally include semi-manufactured forms of gold. Subheading 710813 specifically covers semi-manufactured form. Further, item 71081310 covers forms containing 99.5 percent or more by weight of gold, and subheading 71081390 covers other forms.

Import policy for CTI1 71081310 and 71081390 has been made “Restricted” vide DGFT Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19 May 2025. Import is now allowed only through nominated agencies.

7.2 Applicability of the notification

India is a signatory to the India-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement which was entered on 13.08.2009. To give effect to this Agreement, Notification No.46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 has been issued. At SI. No. 966 of the notification, customs duty exemption is provided as follows:

S. No.	Chapter, Heading, Sub-heading and Tariff item	Description	Rate (in percentage unless otherwise specified)
966	710399 to 711890	All goods	0.0 0.0

The subheading 710813 is included in the above exemption. This. duty. exemption can be availed provided the goods arc of the origin of the countries mentioned in Appendix I and II in accordance with the Rules of Origin.

Even though the import policy for CTI 71081310 and 71081390 has been made “Restricted”, such restriction should not apply to imports from AIFTA countries. The amendment amounts to imposing non-tariff measures in violation of the India-ASEAN Trade in (;gods Agreement.

7.3 Article 8 of the Free Trade Agreement states that each Party shall not institute or maintain any non-tariff measure on the importation of goods from the other Parties. The “Restricted” policy functions as a non-automatic import licensing procedure and as a measure affecting competition (classified under Chapter E and If of the International Classification of’ Non-Tariff Measures by UNCTAD).

It is evident that the restricted import policy is a non-tariff measure, an_.^, such measure will he against the article 8 of the India-ASEAN Trade in goods agreement. Therefore. the tariff notification which is issued to give benefits of the Free Trade Agreement should not he affected by any Non-tariff measure. .Such non-tariff barriers cannot negate .the benefit of exemption granted under the notification.

7.4 This interpretation is favoured by the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.M. Exports (2015) and Union of India vs. Agrieas LLP (2020) where it was held that, when India is a signatory to an international treaty and a statutchotification.is made in, furtherance of such treaty, the provisions should be construed to carry out treaty obligations and not to be inconsistent with them. International treaties act as a constraint on sovereign activity.

7.5 It is to be noted that at the time of agreement (13.08.2009) the import policy of the subject goods were “free^– and restrictions were imposed only later on: (The first restriction on semi manufactured forms of gold appears only from.-18.122019 vide Mill^. Notification No. 36/2015­2020)

7.6 Therefore, the import policy of the goods under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, when imported from countries listed in Appendix I, II, is to be read as “FREE”, provided the goods satisfy the country-of-origin criteria under the ASEAN-India Rules of Origin.

7.7 A note on import policy of subject goods and Nominated Agencies:

The import policy condition of the subject goods. is that: “import is allowed only through nominated agencies as notified by RBI (in case of banks) and DGFT (for other agencies)”

7.8 Import is allowed only through nominated agencies as notified by RBI in the case of banks, and by DGFT for other agencies. All Category I banks including Axis Bank Limited, Bank of India, Deutsche Bank etc., have been notified by RBI as Nominated Agency. Further, agencies like Diamond India Limited and MMTC Ltd. are nominated by the DGFT.

This list is published periodically by DGFT under Appendix 4B of the HBP.

8. Discussion and Findings

8.1 I have carefully considered the application, the statements of facts, the written submissions filed by the applicant, the submissions made during the course of personal hearing, and the material available on record. I proceed to examine the issues raised in the application in light of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the notifications issued thereunder, and the applicable legal framework.

8.2 The applicant has sought an advance ruling on the following questions:

(i) the classification of gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars;

(ii) the applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 to such goods when imported from countries listed in Appendix-I and Appendix-II thereto.

Further, from a reading of the detailed submissions and grounds advanced by the applicant, it is observed that the applicant has also raised the issue as to:

(iii) whether the import policy restrictions applicable to tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 can be disregarded in respect of imports from ASEAN countries on the ground that such restrictions constitute non-tariff measures allegedly inconsistent with the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA).

8.3 Maintainability of the Questions Raised

Relive examining the merits of the issues raised by the applicant, it is necessary to determine whether the questions fall within the scope of jurisdiction conferred, upon this Authority under Chapter V-B of the Customs Act, 1962.

8.3.1 Section 281(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 defines an “advance ruling” as:

“advance ruling” means a written decision on any of the questions referred to in section 2811 raised by the applicant in his application in respect of any goods prior to its importation or exportation.

8.3.2 Further. Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that:

“The question on which the advance ruling is sought shall be in respect of

(a) classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;

(b) applicability of a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 25 having a bearing on the rate of duty:

(c) principles to be adopted for determination of value of the goods under the provisions of this Act;

(d) applicability of notifications issued in respect of ales under this Act, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and any duty chargeable under any other law, the time being in force in the same manner as duty of customs leviable under this Act;

(e) determination of origin of goods in terms of rules notified antler the Customs’ Tariff Act,
1975 and matters relating thereto.”

8.3.3 It is evident from the above provisions that the jurisdiction of this Authority is confined to the specific questions expressly enumerated under Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

8.3.4 The first question raised by the applicant pertains to the classification of the subject goods. namely gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars. Such a question squarely falls within the ambit of clause (a) of Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

8.3.5 The second question relates to the applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 to the subject goods when imported from countries specified in Appendix-I and Appendix-I1 thereto. This question is covered by clause (b) of Section 2811(2) and is therefore maintainable before this Authority.

8.3.6 However, upon a careful examination of the detailed submissions filed by the applicant, it is observed that the applicant has sought not merely a determination regarding the applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, but has also contended that the import policy restrictions applicable to tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 under the Foreign Trade Policy, as amended vide DWI Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19.05.2025, are inapplicable to imports originating from ASEAN countries. The applicant has further argued that such restrictions constitute non-tariff measures allegedly inconsistent with Article 8 of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) and, therefore, cannot operate so as to restrict the imports in question.

In substance, the aforesaid contention requires an examination of the validity, legality, effect and enforceability of the import policy conditions prescribed under the Foreign Trade Policy. and the notifications issued thereunder in exercise of powers conferred by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Such an exercise does not fall within aim of the questions verified under Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The jurisdiction of this Authority is statutory and limited to the matters expressly entrusted to it under the Customs Act, 1962. No provision of Section 2811 empowers this Authority to adjudicate upon:

(a) the validity of the Foreign Trade Policy;

(b) the legality of notifications issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade;

(c) the consistency of domestic trade policy measures with international treaty obligations;

(d) the compatibility of domestic legislation with international treaties;

(e) the constitutional validity or legal sustainability of executive or legislative measures; or

(f) challenges to policy decisions taken under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. 1992.

Accordingly, while the present application is maintainable insofar as it seeks a determination regarding the classification of the subject _goods and the applicability of Notification No. 46/201 1-Customs dated 01.06.2011, the applicant’s challenge to the import policy restrictions prescribed under the Foreign Trade Policy, and the contention that such restrictions arc liable to he disregarded on account of their alleged inconsistency with AITICIA, fall outside the scope of Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and do not fall for consideration in the present advance ruling proceedings.

8.4 Classification of the Subject Goods

8.4.1. The applicant proposes to import gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars and similar forms. –

8.4.2. The relevant tariff entry under Chapter 71 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1.975 reads as under:

HSN Code	Description
7108	Gold (including gold plated with platinum) unwrought or in semi-manufactured forms, or in powder form
7108 11 00	– Non-monetary: – Powder
7108 12	– Non-monetary: – Other unwrought forms:
7108 12 10	– – Containing 99.5 per cent or more by weight of gold
7108 12 90	– – Other
7108 13	– Other semi-manufactured forms:
7108 13 10	– – Containing 99.5 per cent or more by weight of gold
7108 13 90	– – Other
7108 20 00	– Monetary

8.4.3 Rule 1 oldie General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. 1975 provides as follows:

“Me Niles of Sections. Chapters and sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.”

Accordingly. classification is required to be determined primarily on the basis of the terms of the heading and the relevant Section or Chapter Notes.

8.4.4 Heading 7108 specifically covers:

“Gold (including gold plated with platinum) unwrought or in semi-man factored forms, or in powder ,form.”

Thus. the tariff heading itself expressly contemplates gold presented in semi-manufactured forms.

8.4.5 Further guidance regarding the scope of the heading is available from the harmonized System Explanatory Notes (I ISN). which constitute a recognised aid to tariff interpretation. The Explanatory Note to Ileading 71.08 provides that:

“The heading includes gold and gold alloys in the same firms as those described for silver. The provisions of Explanatory Note to heading 71.06 therefore apply, mutatis mutandis.”

8.4.6 The Explanatory Note to Heading 71.06, while describing the forms of silver covered by the heading, states that the heading covers silver and its alloys in the following forms and specifically includes:

“(III) Bars, rods, sections, wire, plates, sheets and strip.”…

8.4.7 Therefore, by virtue of the express language of the Explanatory Note to I leading 71.08, the forms specified in the Explanatory Note to I leading 71.06 are equally relevant in determining the scope of Heading 7108. The goods proposed to be imported by the applicant, namely gold sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars, are forms specifically recognised in the HSN as falling, within the ambit of I leading 7108.

8.3.8 I also note that the subject goods arc not presented as articles jewellery goldsmiths’ wares or other finished articles classifiable under the subsequent headings of Chapter 71. Rather, they are proposed to be imported as gold in intermediate forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods and bars. Such forms remain squarely covered by the description contained in Heading 7108.

8.3.9 Since the goods arc specifically covered by the terms of I leading 7108 itself. classification is determinable by application of Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation. Recourse to the subsequent interpretative rules is therefore unnecessary.

8.3.10 In view of the foregoing, I find that gold in the form of sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars and similar forms is appropriately classifiable under Heading 7108 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Depending upon the purity and specifications of the goods as presented at the time of importation, the goods would appropriately fall under tariff item 7108 13 00 covering “Other semi-manufactured forms.”

8.3.11 Accordingly, I observe that the subject goods, namely gold in the form of sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars and similar forms, are appropriately classifiable under !leading 7108 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and, depending upon their purity and specifications, under the appropriate tariff item of sub-heading 7108 13 covering “Other semi manufactured forms”.

8.5 Applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs

8.5.1 The applicant has contended that the subject goods, namely gold in semi-manufactured forms, arc eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 46/201 1-Customs dated 01.06.2011 when imported from countries specified in Appendix-I or Appendix-II to the said notification. In support of this contention the applicant has relied upon the tariff coverage under SI. No. 966 of the notification and has submitted that:

At SI. No. 966 of the amended notification, customs duty exemption applicable to all the goods falling under 7103 99 to 7118 90 have been specified. HSN 7108 13 00 is also covered in this entry.”

8.5.2 I find that Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 has been issued to give effect to the Agreement on Trade in Goods under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Republic of India ^.and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The relevant portion of the notification, as extracted by the applicant, provides that the Central Government exempts the specified goods from so much of the customs duty leviable thereon as is in excess of the rates prescribed therein, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the notification.

8.5.3 SI. No. 966 of the Table appended to the notification reads as follows:

S. No. Chapter, Heading, Sub-heading and Tariff Item Description Rate

S. No	Chapter, Heading, Sub-heading and Tariff Item	Description	Rate (in percentage unless otherwise specified)	Rate
966	710399 to 711890	All goods	0.0	0.0

Accordingly. goods falling under licading,7108 arc covered within the tariff range specified at SI. No. 966 of the notification. Since gold in semi-manufactured forms is classifiable under !leading 7108. the subject goods arc prima facie covered by the scope of the notification.

8.5.4 However, the notification does not operate independently of the conditions expressly incorporated therein. The notification itself stipulates:

“Provided that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner• of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in Appendix .1 or Appendix II. as the case may be, in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff !Determination of Origin of Goody under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of il/lember States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India! Rules, 2009…”

8.5.5 Thus, the benefit _.of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs becomes available only upon satisfaction of the following statutory requirements:

(i) the good must originate in a country listed in Appendix-1 or Appendix-11 to the notification;

(ii) the goods must satisfy the applicable Rules of Origin prescribed under the ASEAN-India Preferential Trade Agreement framework; and

(iii) the importer must comply with the documentary and procedural requirements prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the notifications and regulations issued thereunder.

8.5.6 The applicant has correctly submitted that:

“This duty exemption can he availed, provided that the importer proves that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in Appendix I, in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff !Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009…”

8.5.7 Therefore, I observe that the subject goods being classifiable under Heading 7108, fall within the tariff coverage of Si. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/201 1-Customs dated 01.06.2011 and are eligible for consideration under the said notification.

However, the benefit of the notification is not automatic and remains subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein, including compliance with the applicable’ Rules of Origin and satisfaction of the prescribed origin criteria. Further, the notification governs only the preferential customs ditty treatment available to eligible goods and does not, by itself, determine or dispense with compliance with any other statutory requirements governing the importation of such goods. The applicant’s further contention regarding the effect of the import policy applicable to the subject goods is therefore examined separately in the succeeding paragraphs.

8.6 Examination of the Applicant’s Contentions Regarding the Import Policy Applicable to the Subject Goods:

8.6.1 The applicant has contended that, notwithstanding the amendment carried out vide DGFT Notification No. 08/2025-26 dated 19.05.2025 whereby tariff items 7108 i 310 and 71081390 have been placed under the “Restricted” category and import thereof’ has been permitted only through nominated agencies notified by RI31 or DGFT, such restrictions cannot be applied to imports originating from ASEAN countries. According to the applicant, the impugned restrictions constitute non-tariff measures within the meaning of Article 8 of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) and, consequently, cannot curtail or dilute the benefit available under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011.

8.6.2 In^– support of the aforesaid contention, the applicant^– has relied upon Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India, Article 8 of AITIGA, the UNCTAD classification of’ non-tariff measures, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs G.M. Exports^. 12015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)] and Union of India v. Agricas LLP12020 (373) 752 (S.C.) j.

8.6.3 At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of the present proceedings. As already discussed in detail at paragraphs 8.3.1 to 8.3.6 above, the jurisdiction of this Authority is a creature of statute and is confined to the questions expressly specified in Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Authority is empowered to tender advance rulings only in respect of’ matters such as classification of goods, applicability of customs notifications, determination or origin,’ valuation principles and other ^–issues specifically enumerated therein. Therefore, before examining the applicant’s contention that the import policy restrictions applicable to tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 are inconsistent with AITIGA and. consequently inapplicable, to imports from ASEAN countries, it becomes necessary to, determine whether such a contention falls within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon this Authority under Chapter V-I3 of the customs Act. 1962.

8.6.4 The legislative scheme is thus clear. An advance ruling may he rendered on classification, applicability of customs notifications, valuation principles, determination of origin. and other matters expressly specified in Section 2811(2). The provision does not confer upon this Authority any adjudicatory power to examine the legality, validity, constitutional sustainability, enforceability or treaty-consistency of measures issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 or the Foreign Trade Policy framed thereunder.

8.6.5 The import restrictions referred to by the applicant owe their existence not to the Customs Act. 1962 or to Notification No. 46/2011-Customs..but to powers exercised under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 provides:

“The Central Government may also, by Order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the Order, the import or export of goods or services or technology.”

8.6.6 It is therefore evident that the power to prescribe conditions, restrictions and regulatory requirements governing imports is statutorily vested in the Central Government under a separate enactment. Whether a particular restriction is justified, whether it conforms to India’s international treaty obligations, or whether it is susceptible to challenge on constitutional or other legal grounds are matters that do not arise for determination in proceedings under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962.

8.6.7 The applicant’s submissions, though couched as an argument concerning the applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, in substance seek a declaration that the import policy conditions applicable to tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 should not be applied in the case of imports from ASEAN countries. Acceptance of such a contention would necessarily require a determination on the validity, legal effect and enforceability of an independently operating policy measure framed under another statute. Such an exercise travels beyond the scope of the questions that this Authority is empowered to decide.

8.6.8 The decisions relied upon by the applicant do not alter the aforesaid position. The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Exports and Agricas LLP are well settled. Where statutory language admits of ambiguity, courts may adopt an interpretation consistent with treaty obligations and the object sought to be achieved by the treaty. However, those decisions do not lay down that a statutory authority functioning within a limited jurisdiction may disregard an operative statutory provision, notification or policy measure merely because it is alleged to be inconsistent with an international agreement.

8.6.9 In the present case. there is no ambiguity in Notifi6ation No. 46/2011-Customs requiring resolution through reference to treaty principles. Further, the issue raised by the applicant is not one relating to the. determination of origin of goods in terms of the Rules notified under the Customs Tariff Act. i 975. nor does it concern any matter relating thereto within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 2811(2) ol^. the Customs Act, 1962. Rather, the applicant seeks a determination as to whether the import policy restrictions applicable to tariff items 71081310 and 71081390 are required to be applied in respect of imports originating from ASEAN countries in view of the provisions of AITIGA. Such an issue concerns the operation and effect of import policy measures framed under the Foreign Trade Policy and falls outside the scope of the Questions specified in Section 281-1(2) of the Customs Act. 1962.

8.7 Relationship Between Preferential Tariff Treatment and Import Policy Conditions

8.7.1 The applicant has proceeded on the premise that once goods qualify for preferential tariff treatment under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, the import policy restrictions governing such goods cease to operate. I find no basis for such a proposition either in the notification or in the statutory framework governing imports.

8.7.2 Notification No. 46/2011-Customs has been issued under Section 25(I) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is concerned with the rate of customs duty applicable to eligible goods satisfying the prescribed conditions, including the applicable Rules of Origin.

8.7.3 The Foreign Trade Policy, on the other hand, regulates the entitlement to import and the conditions subject to which such importation may take place. The two operate in distinct statutory fields and address different legal consequences.

8.7.4 A customs exemption notification determines the incidence of customs duty. ft does not, by itself, authorise importation contrary to conditions imposed under any other law. Equally, compliance with import policy requirements does not, by itself, confer entitlement to a customs exemption.

8.7.5 Consequently, eligibility for a preferential rate of duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs and compliance with the import policy conditions applicable at the time of import are independent legal requirements operating in their respective statutory fields, and satisfaction of one does not dispense with compliance with the other.

8.8 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, foregoing discussion and findings, I come to the conclusion that:

(a) Gold in semi-manufactured forms such as sheets, plates, wires, rods, bars and similar forms is classifiable under Heading 7108 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under the appropriate tariff item of sub-heading 7108 13, depending upon the purity and specifications of the goods;

(b) Goods so classified fall within the tariff coverage specified at Sl. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 and are eligible for the preferential tariff treatment prescribed therein, subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the notification, including compliance with the applicable Rules of Origin;

(c) The applicant’s submissions regarding the validity, enforceability or treaty-consistency of the import policy restrictions prescribed under the Foreign Trade Policy fall outside the scope of the questions specified under Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, accordingly, no ruling is rendered thereon; whether or not the restriction is applicable to the applicant, despite the applicant not being included in the pre-approved closed list of nominated agencies, also falls outside the scope of this Authority.

(d) The applicability and compliance requirements of the Foreign Trade Policy and other laws governing importation shall be determined independently by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions governing such matters.

I rule accordingly.