2013 (11) TMI 546 - AT - Customs

Waiver of Pre-deposit import of surgical tapes - Benefit of Notification No.21/2002 Mis-declaration of Goods - Revenue was of the view that the assessee had mis-declared the end use of the tapes imported - Held that - All the points have to be gone into at the stage of final hearing since the same involved interpretation of medical terms, surgical terms and statutory provisions etc. - Relying upon BSN Medical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC(Import) 2013 (10) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI and Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2013 (10) TMI 999 - CESTAT CHENNAI Since in the case of very same item, there were already two decisions, we do not consider it necessary at this stage that we should discuss all these submissions and come to a conclusion - the appellant had made out a prima facie case in their favour for waiver - Under these circumstances, there shall be waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of appeals.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of exemption under Notification No.21/2002 Cus. for imported surgical tapes.
2. Mis-declaration of end use leading to initiation of proceedings, confirmation of demand, and imposition of penalties.
3. Interpretation of medical terms and statutory provisions regarding the exemption availability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant, M/s. 3M India Ltd., imported surgical tapes under three brands and claimed exemption under Sl.No.363 of Notification No.21/2002 Cus. The appellant contended that the surgical tapes fell under the category of 'skin barrier micropore surgical tapes' as per the relevant Notification.

Issue 2: Proceedings were initiated against the appellant due to the mis-declaration of the end use of the imported tapes as ostomy products. The Revenue concluded this based on information from the website and the end use declared by the appellant. Penalties were imposed on the importer-company and two employees, with the demand being confirmed for several consignments from October 2006 to February 2010.

Issue 3: The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, acknowledging the need to delve into the interpretation of medical and surgical terms, as well as statutory provisions. Referring to previous decisions on similar items, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor for waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of appeals. The Tribunal decided not to discuss all submissions at the current stage, given the existence of relevant precedents.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurately declaring the end use of imported goods for availing exemptions under relevant Notifications. It also underscores the significance of legal interpretations and precedents in determining the applicability of exemptions in customs cases. The decision to grant waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery demonstrates the Tribunal's consideration of the appellant's arguments and the need for further examination during the final hearing.