2013 (9) TMI 658 - AT - Customs

Nature of goods - import of Micropore Surgical Tape - Exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 and CVD exemption under Notification No.6/2006 claiming the goods under importation as accessories of medical equipment falling under headings No. 9018 and 9019 - The benefit was denied To be eligible for exemption under this Notification, the goods should be accessories of the goods specified under Sl. No. 357A which are the goods required for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use - Held that - It cannot be considered as accessories of the medical equipment referred to in CTH 9018 to 9022 - the tape in no way improves the efficiency of the medical equipment or aid in its functioning - It merely holds the needle to the skin because of the adhesive nature of the tape - It was a general purpose surgical tape as can be seen from the product catalogue. Benefit of CVD exemption - Held that - the benefit of CVD exemption will not be available to the goods under importation - In the Bills of Entry filed, the appellant has classified the goods under CTH 3005 9060 which deals with pharmaceutical goods. In fact, the said entry specifically covers Microporous Surgical Tapes which are the goods under importation - the said goods cannot fall under CTH 9018, 9019 or 9022 decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods for duty exemption under specific notifications.
2. Determination of goods as accessories to medical equipment for duty exemption eligibility.

Issue 1: Classification of goods for duty exemption under specific notifications

The judgment involves two appeals concerning the classification of goods for duty exemption under specific notifications. In the first appeal, the appellant claimed duty exemption for the import of Micropore Surgical Tape under Notification No.21/2002 and Notification No.6/2006. The lower appellate authority denied the benefit, considering the goods as pharmaceutical items under Chapter 30, not accessories. The second appeal also dealt with a similar issue of claiming benefits under the mentioned notifications for goods classified as accessories of medical equipment. The appellant argued that the goods should be considered as accessories eligible for duty exemptions.

Issue 2: Determination of goods as accessories to medical equipment for duty exemption eligibility

The main contention in the judgment revolved around whether the imported goods, specifically Micro Porous Hypoallergenic Tapes, could be classified as accessories to medical equipment for duty exemption eligibility. The appellant argued that the tapes were suitable for surgical dressings and fixing medical devices like Catheters, thus qualifying as accessories. However, the Revenue authority contended that the goods did not meet the criteria to be considered accessories under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and the nature of the goods, emphasizing that for duty exemption eligibility, the goods must improve the efficiency of medical equipment or aid in its functioning. The Tribunal concluded that the surgical tape, being a general-purpose adhesive tape, did not enhance the efficiency of medical equipment and hence could not be classified as accessories under the specified headings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, holding that the imported goods did not qualify as accessories to medical equipment under the relevant notifications for duty exemption. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the classification criteria and highlighted the essential requirement for goods to aid in the functioning or efficiency of medical equipment to be considered as accessories. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the notifications and the nature of the goods in question, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.