1988 (5) TMI 169 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended.

Analysis:
The appellants filed an appeal against the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended, for the clearance of goods declared as "Hakko Brand Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use Infusion Set." The department contended that the imported item was not "Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use" but only "Scalp Vein Set," which did not qualify as a life-saving drug. The appellants argued that "Scalp Vein Sets" are also known as "Butterfly Needles" or "Winged Infusion Sets" and provided references to support their claim. They also highlighted that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports clarified that "Scalp Vein Sets" are covered under the relevant list. The Collector of Customs, Cochin authorized the import but denied duty exemption under the Notification, stating the specific nature of the goods imported. The appellants appealed this decision, emphasizing the classification and exemption criteria.

During the hearing, the appellants' counsel argued that the imported goods were indeed "Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use Infusion Sets," certified by relevant authorities. They presented evidence, including product samples and catalog references, to support their claim that the goods were life-saving equipment. The counsel pointed out that the Deputy Chief Controller's clarification and past practices of other Customs Houses supported their position. They cited previous orders and a decision by the Tribunal in a similar case to strengthen their argument. The respondent, supporting the Collector's decision, referenced the same Tribunal decision cited by the appellants.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and found that the imported goods met the description of "Intravenous Canulae and Tubing for long term use" under the relevant Notification. The clarification provided by the Deputy Chief Controller supported this classification. Considering consistent practices of other Customs Houses and the identical wording of relevant entries, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's decision and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief. The Tribunal did not address the argument regarding exemption under a different item, as the classification under the Notification sufficed for the decision.