2002 (8) TMI 235 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Allegations of not fulfilling post-importation conditions for duty exemption.
3. Withdrawal of customs duty exemption certificates by DGHS.
4. Appellant's defense regarding seized records.
5. Findings of central enquiry team leading to cancellation of exemption certificate.
6. Appellant's challenge of findings and legal position regarding continuous liability under Notification No. 64/88.

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The Commissioner of Customs confiscated clinical equipment imported by the appellant under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., offering redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty under section 112(A) of the Customs Act. Additionally, duty amount was confirmed, leading to the appeal.

Allegations of Non-Fulfillment of Conditions:
The appellant imported goods against duty exemption certificates issued by DGHS, with conditions to provide free treatment to a percentage of patients based on income levels. A show cause notice alleged non-compliance, supported by communication from DGHS withdrawing the exemption certificates due to findings of a central enquiry team.

Withdrawal of Exemption Certificates:
DGHS withdrew the exemption certificates based on findings that the hospital did not provide free services as required. The central enquiry team reported discrepancies in patient treatment, lack of free services provision, and absence of verifiable free cases, leading to cancellation of the certificates.

Appellant's Defense and Seized Records:
During adjudication, the appellant cited seized records by the income tax department as hindrance to challenging the allegations. However, the Commissioner did not accept this defense, resulting in the impugned order.

Findings Leading to Certificate Cancellation:
The central enquiry team's findings highlighted the hospital's failure to provide free services as mandated, including no free patient admissions, lack of free medicines, and discrepancies in free cases reported. The appellant disputed these findings without producing evidence to rebut them.

Legal Position on Continuous Liability:
The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of exemption certificates, citing the Supreme Court's precedent that importers claiming benefits under Notification No. 64/88 are continuously liable to fulfill conditions. Failure to comply results in duty payment and confiscation. As the appellant did not challenge the findings before a higher forum or provide evidence, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the binding nature of the central enquiry team's findings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues of confiscation, non-compliance allegations, certificate withdrawal, appellant's defense, findings leading to cancellation, and the legal position on continuous liability, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.