2005 (5) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of 'Path Speed Work Station' to exemption under Notification No. 20/99.
2. Classification of 'Path Speed Work Station' as an accessory to the MRI system.
3. Confiscation and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Misdeclaration of goods.
5. Request for re-export of the goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 20/99:
The primary issue was whether the 'Path Speed Work Station' imported was entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 20/99 (Sl. No. 271A). The Adjudicating authority denied this benefit, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties. The appellants argued that the 'Path Speed Work Station' enhances the working of the MRI system and should be considered an accessory, thus qualifying for the exemption.

2. Classification as an Accessory to the MRI System:
The appellants contended that the 'Path Speed Work Station' is an accessory to the MRI system, providing technical opinions and dictionary definitions to support their claim. They cited case laws to argue that an accessory is something that adds to the effectiveness of the main equipment. The Tribunal examined the functionality of the 'Path Speed Work Station', noting that it improves the productivity of the MRI system and other imaging modalities by facilitating the storage and retrieval of images. The Tribunal concluded that the 'Path Speed Work Station' enhances the utility of the MRI system and qualifies as an accessory.

3. Confiscation and Penalties:
The Adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties on the appellants and M/s. Wipro GE Medical Systems, Bangalore. The Tribunal, however, found that the 'Path Speed Work Station' could be considered an accessory to the MRI system and thus entitled to the exemption. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties were set aside.

4. Misdeclaration of Goods:
The Revenue argued that the appellants misdeclared the 'Path Speed Work Station' as part of the MRI system, justifying the confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal, however, observed that the packing list submitted to Customs contained the full description of the goods, and thus the charge of misdeclaration was not sustainable.

5. Request for Re-export:
The appellants' request for re-export of the goods was initially rejected by the Adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' request for re-export could be considered favorably by the Original Authority, given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the 'Path Speed Work Station' qualifies as an accessory to the MRI system, making it eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 20/99. The confiscation and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating authority were set aside, and the request for re-export was to be considered favorably. The appeals were disposed of in these terms.