9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods as new instead of old/reconditioned. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt. 1-3-1988 based on the certificate issued by DGHS. Summary: Issue 1: Mis-declaration of Imported Goods The appellant, an importer, claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt. 1-3-1988 for importing "Cat Scanner Equipment" valued at Rs. 1,40,22,787 CIF. The Customs Department, based on an inspection report, alleged that the imported goods were old and reconditioned, not new as declared. The inspection report stated, "the goods appear to be old," and cited a label dated 12-7-1982 found on the equipment. Further statements from various representatives of the importer supported the Department's suspicion. The Collector of Customs held that the import under OGL must be new goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 14 lakhs in lieu of confiscation, although he did not impose any penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the examination report was based on mere surmise and lacked concrete evidence. The price paid for the machine was for a new one, and the Department had not verified the condition of the machine from the supplier or any expert. The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and the redemption fine, concluding that the charge of mis-declaration was not substantiated. Issue 2: Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt. 1-3-1988 The importer provided a certificate from the DGHS, which certified compliance with the conditions of the notification, including providing free treatment to a certain percentage of patients. The Collector doubted the certificate's validity, arguing that the diagnostic center did not qualify as a hospital under the notification. However, the Tribunal noted that the DGHS had thoroughly examined the importer's case and issued the certificate in compliance with the notification's terms. The Tribunal referred to the explanation in the notification, which included diagnostic centers within the definition of a hospital. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had also clarified that diagnostic centers attached to hospitals were eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the Collector's rejection of the DGHS certificate was unwarranted and that the importer was entitled to the benefit of the notification. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation and fine imposed by the Collector. The imported goods were not proven to be old or reconditioned, and the importer was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt. 1-3-1988 based on the valid certificate issued by the DGHS.
|
