2024 (5) TMI 903 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Whether the imported insulated boxes designed for carrying vaccines and blood should be classified under Chapter Tariff Heading 39231030 (insulated ware) or under Heading 9018 (instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences) - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the case of Becton Dickinson 1998 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS that it has consistent stand of the Tribunal and courts that if the items are specifically designed for medicinal use, the classification under heading 9018 should be preferred over any other classification given to similar products not used for medicinal purposes. In this regard, the Note 2(u) of the Chapter 39 also becomes relevant which also confirms the same view. The goods in the instant case are specifically designed for medical use and supplied to actual users. From the Note Note I(L), it is apparent that the special blood storage bottles are specifically excluded from Chapter 90 and Heading 9018. This also implies that ordinarily such bottles could have been classified under Chapter heading 9018 but the HSN has specifically excluded and take it to heading 7010. There is no such heading excluding the boxes made for vaccine from Chapter heading 9018. Moreover this note also holds that containers of plastic for carrying blood would be classifiable under Chapter Tariff Heading 9018. Thus, the argument of Revenue does not hold any merit. Revenue has relied on the assertion that the Commissioner has ignored Interpretative Rule 3(a) before applying Interpretative Rule 3(c) of the Interpretative Rules for classification of the Customs Tariff. We find no mention of these Rules in the orders of the Commissioner. We find that Commissioner has specifically come to the conclusion that goods are more specifically classifiable under heading 9018 as medical equipment and therefore, there is no application of Rule 3(c) in the order of the Commissioner. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Application of Interpretative Rules for classification.
3. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
4. Previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the imported insulated boxes designed for carrying vaccines and blood should be classified under Chapter Tariff Heading 39231030 (insulated ware) or under Heading 9018 (instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences). The Revenue argued for classification under 39231030, emphasizing that the goods are insulated boxes made of plastic. The Respondents contended that the goods, being designed as per WHO, UNICEF, and Ministry of Health specifications for medical use, should be classified under 9018.

2. Application of Interpretative Rules for Classification:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner ignored Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of Import Tariff, which states that the heading providing the most specific description should be preferred. They claimed the Commissioner incorrectly applied Rule 3(c) instead. The Tribunal found no mention of these Rules in the Commissioner's order and concluded that the Commissioner correctly classified the goods under 9018 without needing to apply Rule 3(c).

3. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes:
The Revenue relied on the HSN Explanatory Notes to argue that the goods should be classified under 3923, which covers all articles of plastic used for packing or conveyance. The Respondents pointed to the HSN Explanatory Notes for 9018, which include instruments and appliances used in medical or surgical contexts, arguing that the goods are intended for medical use and thus fall under 9018. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondents, noting that the goods are specifically designed for medical use and supplied to actual users.

4. Previous Tribunal Decisions on Similar Issues:
The Tribunal considered previous decisions, such as Laxbro Manufacturing Co. and Cognate India, which dealt with the classification of medical equipment and laboratory ware. These cases supported the view that items specifically designed for medical use should be classified under 9018. The Tribunal found that the facts in the current case were significantly different from Laxbro Manufacturing Co. and aligned more closely with Cognate India, reinforcing the classification under 9018.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's classification of the goods under Heading 9018 as medical equipment. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods are specifically designed for medical use, and the application of Interpretative Rules and HSN Explanatory Notes supported this classification.