CESTAT Hyderabad Rules 24K Oval Gold Pendants Are ‘Articles of Jewellery’; Allows Duty Exemption Under ASEAN-FTA
Pranav B Prem
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that oval-shaped 24-karat gold pendants imported with hooks for wearing are to be classified as “articles of jewellery” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7113 1910, and not as semi-manufactured gold under CTH 7108 1300. The Tribunal ruled that the pendants are finished products capable of being worn on the body, and therefore qualify for duty exemption under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The order was passed on November 28, 2025 by A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member).
The dispute arose out of a consignment consisting of 250 oval-shaped gold pendants of 99.99% purity, each weighing 20 grams, totalling 5 kilograms, valued at ₹2.15 crore. The appellant had classified the goods under CTH 7113 1910, claiming exemption from customs duty under Sl. No. 966 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus (as amended by Notification No. 82/2018-Cus) on the basis that the imports originated from Indonesia and therefore qualified for concessional duty under the ASEAN-FTA.
The Customs Department, however, refused to release the goods and later issued a Show Cause Notice dated November 12, 2021, proposing to reclassify the pendants under CTH 7108, treating them as semi-manufactured gold. The proposals in the SCN were confirmed through an Order-in-Original dated December 23, 2021, which led to the present appeal.
While analysing the classification issue, the Tribunal referred to Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 71, which defines pendants as articles of personal adornment falling under Heading 7113. Applying the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI), the Bench held that the pendants, being oval-shaped finished jewellery pieces fitted with hooks, were capable of being worn on the body. The Tribunal observed that these characteristics clearly indicated use as ornaments rather than unfinished gold, and therefore they could not be treated as unwrought or semi-manufactured gold under Heading 7108.
The Tribunal rejected the Customs Department’s contention that 24-karat pure gold cannot be used to make jewellery. It noted that the appellant had produced evidence showing that 24K gold pendants of 99.99% purity are available in the market, including products manufactured by Kundan and Anjali Gold, and that the adjudicating authority had not rebutted this evidence.
On the question of import restrictions, the Tribunal examined DGFT Notification No. 36/2019, which changed the import policy of certain Chapter 71 goods. It held that the notification did not apply to goods under CTH 7113 and therefore did not restrict the pendants in question. It further noted that the DGFT clarification dated June 14, 2021 had confirmed that imports under CTH 7113 continued to remain “free” at the relevant time. The Tribunal also addressed Notification No. 22/2021 dated September 2, 2021, which widened the scope of the expression “gold in any form”. It held that this notification could not be applied retrospectively to the present case, because the import had taken place on May 10, 2021, prior to the change.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the pendants were finished jewellery with hooks for chains, inscriptions and designs meant for personal adornment, and therefore were correctly classifiable under CTH 7113 1910. As the goods were covered under the ASEAN-India FTA and there were no import restrictions applicable on the date of import, the appellant was entitled to duty exemption. Holding that the Department’s classification was incorrect and that the import was valid and unrestricted, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, along with consequential reliefs. Since the classification adopted by the appellant was upheld and duty exemption was admissible, the Tribunal also ruled that confiscation and penalties could not survive.
Appearance
For Appellant: Advocates Kishore Kunal, Runjhun Pare
For Respondent: Authorized Representative Mr. A. Rangadham
Cause Title: R.K. Digital Solutions vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST
Case No: Customs Appeal No. 30206 of 2024
Coram: A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member), Angad Prasad (Judicial Member)
