1990 (2) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether 'Foley Balloon Catheters' are similar to 'Suction Catheters' under the A.M. 1985-88 Policy, appendix 6, list 2 item No. 31.
2. Whether the imported goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22nd September 1981, under serial No. 32 of Heading B of the schedule annexed to the said notification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Similarity to 'Suction Catheters' under A.M. 1985-88 Policy:
The primary issue is whether 'Foley Balloon Catheters' can be classified as 'Suction Catheters' under the A.M. 1985-88 Policy. The importers argued that Foley Balloon Catheters are indeed Suction Catheters, relying on previous CEGAT orders and opinions from medical experts. Specifically, they referenced the case of P.R. Parekh v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, where it was determined that Foley Balloon Catheters could be considered Suction Catheters.

The Department, however, opposed this classification, presenting revised opinions from the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) and other medical experts who stated that Foley Balloon Catheters and Suction Catheters serve different purposes and should not be classified similarly. The DGHS initially supported the importers' view but later revised their stance, indicating that Foley Balloon Catheters should not benefit from the notification.

2. Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus.:
The second issue is whether the imported Foley Balloon Catheters are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., which exempts certain life-saving equipment from customs duty. The importers argued that Foley Balloon Catheters qualify for this exemption, as they are used for drainage of the urinary bladder, a critical medical function.

The Department contended that the benefit of the notification is only available for Suction Catheters, not Foley Balloon Catheters. They cited various medical opinions and dictionary definitions to support their argument that the two types of catheters are distinct and serve different medical purposes.

Judgment:
The Tribunal reviewed the facts, previous judgments, and expert opinions. It noted that the earlier judgment in the case of P.R. Parekh v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, had already established that Foley Balloon Catheters could be classified as Suction Catheters. This judgment was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court in Mansukhlal Chhaganlal Desai v. Union of India.

The Tribunal also considered the principle that if the interpretation of a fiscal enactment is open to doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject should be adopted. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd.

In light of these precedents and the principle of judicial decorum, the Tribunal concluded that the importers' appeals should be allowed, and the revenue's appeals should be dismissed. The Tribunal directed the revenue authorities to give consequential effect to this order, affirming that Foley Balloon Catheters are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. and can be classified as Suction Catheters under the A.M. 1985-88 Policy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision reaffirmed the classification of Foley Balloon Catheters as Suction Catheters, thereby entitling them to the benefits of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. This judgment aligns with previous Tribunal rulings and the principle of adopting the most beneficial interpretation for the subject in cases of doubt.