CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 03 CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10352 of 2015-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-357-14-15 dated

10.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD]

Asia World Exports ...Appellant

80, Aip Marg Banian Street, Salim Manzil, Phdhonie Mumbai Maharashtra-400003 VERSUS C.C.-Ahmedabad ...Respondent Custom House, Near All India Radio Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat APPEARANCE Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate for Intervener for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU FINAL ORDER NO. 10063/2024 DATE OF HEARING:06.11.2023 DATE OF DECISION:05.01.2024 RAJU This appeal has been filed by M/s. Asia World Exports, against change in classification of goods imported by them.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they imported “Glass Beads Chatons” and sought classification under Heading 70181020. The goods were examined by Government approved valuer on 06.02.2014, and he certified the goods as “Glass Chatons” and described the goods as conical shaped stones resembling artificial diamonds without any piercing/ hole. This according to the revenue was not confirming the definition of “Beads”, but appeared to be confirming to the “Chatons”. The Learned Counsel pointed out that revenue sought to classify the goods not as beads but as chatons. The revenue was of the opinion that for anything to be classified as beads it has to be pierced. It was argued that while glass beads classifiable under Heading 70181020, the chatons are classifiable under heading 70181090 in the category “others”. Learned Counsel argued that Tribunal in the case of Art Beads Pvt Ltd had classified the said goods as beads. He argued that the said order was not changed by revenue and therefore is binding on revenue. He point out that in the said order the Tribunal had preferred to the HSN explanatory notes as well as letter F. No. 390/RTI/14-2011-JC dated 01.02.2011 of CBEC, wherein it was categorically stated that the said order of the Tribunal was accepted. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of Supreme Court (2015) 321 ELT A202 (SC) in the case of M/s. VMB Impex - 2015 (321) ELT 522 (Tri.) was upheld. He pointed out that in the case of VMB Impex (Supra) reliance was placed in the decision of Tribunal in the case of Art Beads Pvt Ltd-2013 (292) ELT 472. In view of above learned Counsel sought relief.

3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order.

4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the Heading 7018 of the Custom Tariff reads as follows:

7018 90 10 -Other: Kg. 10% - 7018 90 90 ---Glass statues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kg. 10% -

---Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

4.1 It is noticed that the Sub-heading 70181020 covers only “Beads”. The HSN explanatory notes to Heading 7018 described Glass Beads as follows:

“(A) Glass beads (e.g., as used for necklaces, rosaries, imitat