2004 (12) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fulfillment of conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
2. Liability to pay duty upon confiscation of goods.
3. Calculation of duty on depreciated value versus original import value.
4. Quantum of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fulfillment of Conditions under Notification No. 64/88-Cus:
The appellants, a Charitable Society, imported a C.T. Scanner and its spares under the exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The Commissioner of Customs found that the appellants failed to fulfill the condition of providing free treatment to 40% of poor patients as required by the notification. This non-compliance led to the confiscation of the imported goods and the imposition of duty and penalties.

2. Liability to Pay Duty upon Confiscation of Goods:
The appellants argued that duty liability arises only if they choose to redeem the confiscated goods. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Jagdish Cancer & Research Institute, which held that the conditions of the notification are a continuous obligation. If violated, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal confirmed that duty liability would arise only upon the exercise of the option to redeem the goods.

3. Calculation of Duty on Depreciated Value versus Original Import Value:
The appellants contended that duty should be calculated on the depreciated value of the scanner, not the original import value. The Member (Judicial) supported this view, referencing the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Diascans (India) Ltd., which allowed duty recalculation on depreciated value. However, the Member (Technical) disagreed, citing the continuous obligation under the notification and the necessity to pay duty based on the original import value. The Third Member (Judicial) sided with the Member (Technical), emphasizing that the duty should be calculated on the full CIF value at the time of importation, given the non-fulfillment of notification conditions.

4. Quantum of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The Tribunal found no reason to reduce the quantum of redemption fine or penalty. The Commissioner had already considered the depreciated value of the goods while fixing the fine and penalty. Thus, the amounts imposed were deemed appropriate and were confirmed by the Tribunal.

Final Order:
1. Liability to Duty: Arises only upon the exercise of the option to redeem the goods.
2. Duty Calculation: To be discharged on the full CIF value at the time of importation, not on the depreciated value.
3. Redemption Fine and Penalty: Quantum confirmed as imposed by the Commissioner.

This judgment underscores the importance of continuous compliance with exemption notification conditions and clarifies the basis for duty calculation upon the breach of such conditions.