2005 (3) TMI 236 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Customs duty exemption withdrawal without personal hearing.
2. Confiscation of imported medical equipment.
3. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 64/1988.
4. Imposition of duty demands and penalty.

Issue 1: Customs duty exemption withdrawal without personal hearing
The appellant, a Charitable Hospital, imported medical equipment under Notification No. 64/1988. The Director General of Health Services withdrew the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate without granting a personal hearing. The Custom Officers seized the equipment, issued a show cause notice for confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty imposition. The appellant argued against the withdrawal, citing lack of personal hearing and the age of the issue.

Issue 2: Confiscation of imported medical equipment
The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the Hospital Equipment with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appellant appealed against this order, contesting the confiscation and penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 64/1988
The Tribunal analyzed the compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/1988. The appellant argued that they provided free treatment to patients with income levels below Rs. 500 and met the requirements of the notification. The Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the charge of not providing free treatment to eligible patients. The appellant's submission of granting free treatment and waiving registration fees in deserving cases was considered. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant complied with the notification conditions.

Issue 4: Imposition of duty demands and penalty
The Tribunal found that the Customs duty exemption had been repealed before the demand was issued, rendering the proceeding invalid. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's charitable objective was evident in providing free treatment and waiving fees for deserving cases. The Tribunal did not find any violation of the notification conditions and disagreed with the orders of liability to confiscation, duty demands, and penalty. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order.