9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levy of countervailing duty on imported consignment of Pethidine Hydrochloride under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955. Analysis: The Appellant challenged the levy of countervailing duty on an imported consignment of Pethidine Hydrochloride under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955. The Appellant argued that since the consignment was imported and not manufactured in India, no duty should be levied. Additionally, they contended that the consignment did not meet the definition of "dutiable goods" as per the Act. However, the Tribunal clarified that the levy was an additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not solely under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act. The Tribunal explained that if the imported consignment met the description of a medicinal preparation containing a narcotic drug or narcotic, the additional duty would be applicable, irrespective of whether a like article was manufactured in India. The main issue revolved around whether Pethidine Hydrochloride qualified as a "medicinal preparation containing narcotic drug or narcotic." The Appellant argued that the consignment did not fall under this category as it required further processing before use and did not strictly fit the definition of a drug or substance as per legal precedents. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the consignment fell within the definition of "medicinal preparations" and was considered a substance under the Act, including narcotics. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of "narcotic drug" and "medicinal preparation" under the Act. It concluded that a narcotic, such as Pethidine Hydrochloride, could be considered a medicinal preparation if intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease in humans or animals. The Tribunal highlighted that the consignment was indeed intended for such use, making it a medicinal preparation within the Act's scope, even if it did not fit the traditional definition of a drug. Moreover, the Tribunal addressed the argument that a narcotic by itself could qualify as a medicinal preparation under the Act, even if it was not part of a preparation containing a narcotic. The Tribunal emphasized that the word "contain" in the context of medicinal preparations encompassed the idea of comprising or including, allowing for a broad interpretation. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the levy of countervailing duty on the imported consignment of Pethidine Hydrochloride under the Customs Tariff Act.
|
