2007 (4) TMI 36 - AT - Customs

Medical Equipment Department contended that the goods imported by the appellant is not consider as Vascular Clamp and accordingly not eligible for exemption Held that the contention was not right

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported product "Octopus 3-0 Tissue Stabilizer/Starfish Heart Positioner" qualifies as a "Vascular Clamp" under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus.
2. Validity of the expert opinions provided by medical professionals regarding the classification of the product.
3. Reliance on website information versus expert opinions.
4. Final assessment of Bills of Entry and the legality of subsequent duty demands.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification as "Vascular Clamp":
The core issue was whether the "Octopus 3-0 Tissue Stabilizer/Starfish Heart Positioner" imported by the appellants qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus as a "Vascular Clamp." The appellants contended that the product is an advanced version of a "Vascular Clamp" used for stabilizing heart tissue during surgery. They relied on various expert opinions from medical professionals to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the product's function aligns with the description of a "Vascular Clamp," which is to stabilize or immobilize the vascular system during surgery. The Tribunal emphasized that technological advancements in medical equipment should be considered, and the product in question fits within the broader definition of a "Vascular Clamp."

2. Expert Opinions:
The Tribunal reviewed multiple expert opinions:
- Dr. Varsha A. Shah confirmed that the product "can be considered a Vascular Clamp."
- Dr. N. Trehan and Dr. M. Nigam provided opinions stating that the product is used for immobilizing and clamping heart tissues during surgery.
- The Gujarat Research & Medical Institute also opined that the product is used for stabilizing, immobilizing, gripping, or clamping heart tissues for vascular surgery.

The Tribunal found these opinions credible and significant, noting that the experts were well-regarded in their fields. The Tribunal dismissed the adjudicating authority's reasoning for rejecting Dr. Shah's opinion based on the wording "can be" and the personal capacity of the opinion.

3. Website Information vs. Expert Opinions:
The revenue relied on a definition of "Vascular Clamp" from the FDA website, which described it as a device used to occlude a blood vessel temporarily. The Tribunal found that relying solely on website information, especially when it contradicts expert opinions, is not appropriate. The Tribunal cited previous decisions emphasizing the reliability of expert opinions over unauthenticated website information.

4. Final Assessment of Bills of Entry:
The appellants argued that the Bills of Entry were finally assessed, and no appeal was filed against them, making the subsequent duty demands invalid. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the product qualifies for the exemption, it did not need to address this argument in detail.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the "Octopus 3-0 Tissue Stabilizer/Starfish Heart Positioner" qualifies as a "Vascular Clamp" and is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. This decision underscores the importance of considering expert medical opinions and technological advancements in determining the classification of medical equipment for customs exemptions.