2012 (11) TMI 447 - AT - Customs

Import of certain medical equipments duty free by claiming the exemption under Notification 64/88 - certificate given by DGHS has been withdrawn/cancelled Held that - Applicant has treated more than 10% indoor and 40% outdoor patients free of charge but there is no evidence on record to show that the patients who have been treated free of charge are having income below Rs. 500/- per month - goods are still in possession and use of the applicant. Therefore, the applicants have failed to make out a case for 100% waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts - applicants directed to make a pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption under Notification 64/88 for duty-free import of medical equipment.
2. Validity of certificate from DGHS.
3. Adjudication of demands, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods.
4. Appeal before Tribunal challenging cancellation of certificate.
5. Reconsideration of certificate cancellation by DGHS.
6. Writ petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
7. Stay on decision due to pending SLP before Apex Court.
8. Financial hardship claim by the applicant.
9. Eligibility for exemption based on patient treatment records.
10. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of medical equipment claiming exemption under Notification 64/88. The certificate from DGHS, which allowed the exemption, was later withdrawn, leading to a show-cause notice for duty demand, interest, penalty, and confiscation of goods.
2. The Tribunal remanded the matter back due to a writ petition challenging the certificate cancellation. After reconsideration by DGHS, the same decision was upheld, leading to subsequent appeals and writ petitions.
3. Despite the dismissal of writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and a pending SLP before the Apex Court, the Commissioner passed an order confirming duty, interest, penalty, and confiscation of imported medical equipment.
4. The applicant sought a stay on the grounds of confiscated goods in possession of revenue, financial hardship, and eligibility for exemption based on patient treatment records.
5. The Tribunal noted this as the third round of litigation, emphasizing that the DGHS had not stayed the certificate withdrawal. It was observed that although the equipment were confiscated, they were still in the possession and use of the applicant.
6. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the duty within eight weeks, with the remaining amount stayed during the appeal's pendency. It was highlighted that the evidence of patient income below Rs. 500 per month was lacking, and the case laws cited were deemed irrelevant.

This detailed analysis covers the multiple issues and legal complexities involved in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.