1984 (8) TMI 317 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Fiber Light Operating Microscopes as endoscopic equipment.
2. Eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 17/79.
3. Validity of import licenses and proforma invoices.
4. Confiscation and penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Fiber Light Operating Microscopes as Endoscopic Equipment:
The primary issue was whether the Fiber Light Operating Microscope (FLOM) could be classified as an endoscope under Sl. No. 34 or 41 of List 2, Appendix 10 of the Import Policy AM-82. The appellants argued that the FLOM was an endoscope or an accessory to an endoscope, citing the supplier's catalogue and a certificate from Dr. K. Madan. However, the tribunal found no material evidence to support this claim. The supplier's catalogue did not classify the microscope as an endoscope, and the other evidence provided by the respondent contradicted the appellants' arguments. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the FLOM could not be classified as an endoscope under the mentioned categories.

2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption under Notification No. 17/79:
The appellants claimed duty exemption for the microscopes under Notification No. 17/79, which grants exemption to medical, surgical, and diagnostic equipment approved by the Ministry of Health or DGHS. They submitted proforma invoices and exemption certificates from the DGHS. However, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates of the invoices and the arrival of the goods. The proforma invoices were dated much later than the arrival of the goods, and the application for exemption was made one and a quarter years after the goods had arrived. This indicated that the exemption certificates were not valid, and the tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to deny the duty exemption.

3. Validity of Import Licenses and Proforma Invoices:
The tribunal examined the validity of the import licenses and proforma invoices submitted by the appellants. The goods were imported without a valid license, and the proforma invoices were dated after the arrival of the goods. The tribunal found that the appellants were not authorized to import the goods in anticipation of obtaining the exemption certificates. Consequently, the import was deemed unauthorized, and the confiscation of the goods was upheld.

4. Confiscation and Penalty Imposed under the Customs Act, 1962:
The Collector had ordered the confiscation of the microscopes and the flexible bronchoscope under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Section 112 for attempting to clear the goods without a valid import license and evading customs duty. The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods but reduced the fine to Rs. 50,000 for the microscopes and Rs. 20,000 for the bronchoscope. The penalty was also reduced to Rs. 10,000. The tribunal acknowledged that the importers were dealers in medical equipment, which made the offense grave, but considered the circumstances in reducing the fines and penalties.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the Collector's order with modifications, reducing the fines and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Fiber Light Operating Microscopes were not classified as endoscopic equipment, and the duty exemption under Notification No. 17/79 was denied due to discrepancies in the proforma invoices and exemption certificates. The import was deemed unauthorized, and the confiscation of the goods was justified.

← Previous Next →