1987 (2) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 4 of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 regarding duty-free entry for imported equipment.
2. Determination of whether an E.C.G. machine imported by the appellant qualifies for duty-free entry under Rule 4.
3. Consideration of the appellant's qualifications and specialization in relation to the eligibility criteria under Rule 4.
4. Evaluation of whether the E.C.G. equipment is ordinarily required by the appellant in her medical profession.
5. Decision on the waiver of demurrage charges accruing on the E.C.G. machine.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of an E.C.G. machine for duty-free entry under Rule 4 of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978. The lower authorities had denied the concession, stating that the equipment was not "ordinarily used always" as required by the rule. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the key issue was whether the E.C.G. equipment was considered as equipment ordinarily required by the appellant in her medical profession. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' interpretation, emphasizing that the equipment should be one that the person concerned ordinarily requires in the exercise of their profession. It was established that the appellant, a highly qualified doctor, held a post-graduate degree in medicine and had been engaged abroad in her field of specialization for over a year. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation that the E.C.G. equipment was essential as a diagnostic aid for patients with chest pain, meeting the criteria of Rule 4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Regarding the request for waiving demurrage charges on the E.C.G. machine, the Tribunal considered it a fit case for such relief. If the demurrage charges were under the Customs Act, the Tribunal ordered their waiver. However, if the charges were levied by the Airport Authorities, the appellant was advised to approach them for resolution. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of interpreting rules in alignment with the purpose and intent behind them, ensuring that qualified individuals receive the benefits intended by the regulations.