2006 (4) TMI 401 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fulfillment of conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Liability for confiscation of goods.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.
4. Validity of demand for customs duty post rescinding of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fulfillment of conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus:
The primary issue was whether the appellants, M/s. Regional Institute of Ophthalmology and Eye Hospital Trust, Sitapur, met the conditions stipulated under Notification No. 64/88-Cus for customs duty exemption. The DGHS, after an inspection by a team of experts, concluded that the appellants failed to fulfill the post-importation conditions, specifically the requirement to provide free treatment to 40% of outpatients and 10% of inpatients with a monthly income of less than Rs. 500. The appellants' claim of compliance was contradicted by the findings of the inspection team, which noted that patients had to pay for inspections, surgeries, and medicines. The hospital did not maintain records of patients' income, and no beds were earmarked for patients with an income below Rs. 500 per month.

2. Liability for confiscation of goods:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for customs duty of Rs. 16,24,403/- and ordered the confiscation of medical equipment valued at Rs. 19,11,063/- under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The appellants were given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The confiscation was based on the failure to meet the conditions of the customs duty exemption, as verified by the DGHS.

3. Imposition of penalty on the appellants:
A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for non-fulfillment of the post-importation conditions. The appellants argued that they were not given an opportunity to present their case before the ROSHA Committee, and there was no in-depth verification by the DGHS. However, the adjudicating authority found that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their compliance with the conditions of the notification.

4. Validity of demand for customs duty post rescinding of Notification No. 64/88-Cus:
The appellants contended that the show cause notice was issued after the rescinding of Notification No. 64/88-Cus on 1-3-94, making the demand for duty invalid. However, the tribunal held that there was a continuing obligation on the appellants to comply with the conditions of the notification, and action could be taken for violation of these conditions under Section 159A of the Customs Act. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mediwell Hospital, which upheld the continuing obligation to provide free treatment to specified percentages of patients.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority, confirming the demand for customs duty, the order of confiscation, and the imposition of a penalty. The appellants' failure to meet the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus rendered the imported medical equipment liable to confiscation and justified the penalty imposed. The appeal was rejected, affirming the lower authority's decision.