2007 (8) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Endospopic Camera Director General of Health Services (DGHS) has already clarified that impugned good can not be considered as P.C.N. operating set Above clarification of DGHS, can not be ignored so exemption under Not. 208/81 can not be granted

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit of exemption notification for imported medical equipment.

Analysis:
The appellant imported medical equipment, including an Endoscopic Camera, seeking exemption under Notification No. 208/81. The Deputy Commissioner examined the issue and found that the camera did not qualify for exemption under Sl. No. 47 of Notification No. 138/88. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the appellant's expertise and noble cause but upheld the decision based on the DGHS clarification that the camera did not fit the definition of a PCN instrument. The appellant appealed, arguing that the DGHS did not consider misuse possibilities or provide reasons for denial. The Tribunal reviewed the technical issue and the DGHS clarifications, ultimately upholding the denial of exemption due to the camera not meeting the PCN instrument criteria as per the DGHS. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision to grant exemption is a policy matter, and the DGHS's view must be respected.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had sought clarification from the DGHS regarding the Endoscopic Camera's classification as a PCN instrument. The DGHS explicitly stated that the camera did not qualify as a PCN instrument under the relevant notification. Despite the appellant's efforts for reconsideration, the DGHS reaffirmed its stance, making it challenging for revenue authorities to grant exemption against such clear guidance. The Tribunal highlighted the executive role of Customs authorities in implementing laws and policies, emphasizing the need to adhere to superior bodies' decisions like the DGHS. Even though sympathetic to the appellant's situation, the Tribunal upheld the decision based on the DGHS clarification. The Tribunal concluded that without evidence to contradict the DGHS's view, the appellant's appeal for exemption could not be granted, respecting the DGHS's technical expertise and policy guidance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the denial of exemption for the Endoscopic Camera based on the DGHS's clarification that it did not qualify as a PCN instrument under the relevant notification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of respecting superior bodies' technical assessments in policy matters, highlighting the executive role of Customs authorities in implementing such decisions. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need to adhere to expert opinions and policy guidelines in determining exemption eligibility for imported goods, ultimately upholding the denial of exemption for the appellant's medical equipment.