2017 (10) TMI 475 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 65/88-Cus. - import of Orthopaedic Tractor Fluoroscopic Operating Table - case of Revenue is that while the goods are orthopaedic tractor fluoroscopic operating table and universal operating tables, it is not known whether they would satisfy the requirement of S.No. 5 of Part-C of N/N. 65/88-Cus as mended by the N/N. 123/94-Cus dated 3.6.1994, viz., S.No. 5 Operating Table Electro Hydraulic type - Held that - the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority only for re-computation of the duty liability in terms of N/N. 65/98-Cus. provided that the imported items will fall within the ambit of Sl.No. 5 of part-C to the Notification, as amended - penalty set aside - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Import of medical equipment under Customs Notification No. 64/88-Cus, denial of benefit, confiscation of goods, differential duty, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, compliance with Notification No. 65/1988-Cus, re-computation of duty liability, satisfaction of requirements under the amended notification, imposition of penalty on Managing Director.

Analysis:
The appellant imported medical equipment under Customs Notification No. 64/88-Cus but faced a show cause notice proposing denial of benefits, confiscation of goods, recovery of differential duty, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority confirmed these proposals, allowing redemption of goods on payment of a fine and imposing penalties. The matter had a history of litigation in various courts, including the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madras, and the Supreme Court, regarding the status of the hospital and the appellant's entitlement to benefits under the notification.

The appellant sought alternate benefits under Notification No. 65/1988-Cus, citing similar cases where such benefits were allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously set aside orders, remanding cases for re-computation of duty liability under the alternate notification. The appellant argued that they had already paid a portion of the duty liability under the alternate notification and should be granted the same benefit in this case. The respondent raised concerns about whether the imported goods met the specific requirements under the amended notification.

After hearing both sides and considering the facts, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments based on previous decisions. They set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-computation of duty liability under Notification No. 65/1988-Cus, subject to the imported items meeting the specified criteria. The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act was also set aside, following the precedent established by previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision was based on ensuring consistency in applying the law and providing fair treatment to the appellant in line with past judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's order focused on granting the appellant the benefit of the alternate notification, considering the history of the case, previous court decisions, and the appellant's compliance with the duty payments. The decision aimed to uphold fairness and consistency in applying customs regulations while addressing the specific circumstances of the case and the appellant's arguments regarding entitlement to benefits under the relevant notifications.