1995 (2) TMI 194 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the "Bio Health Heater".
2. Jurisdiction of the present Bench to hear the case.
3. Determination of the applicable customs duty.
4. Confiscation and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the "Bio Health Heater":

The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of the goods described as "Bio Health Heater". The importers sought classification under Tariff sub-heading No. 9021.19 as an orthopaedic appliance. However, the Appraiser (Customs) classified it under sub-heading No. 3926.90 as an article of plastics, which was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.

The Tribunal examined the product's description and usage, noting that it is a flexible plastic pad containing sodium acetate, water, and bio ceramic stones, which radiate infra-red rays when activated. The product has multiple uses, including relief from muscular pains, keeping muscles warm, and use as a bed heater, among others. The Tribunal concluded that the product is not a general-purpose plastic article and does not fit the description under Heading No. 39.26. Instead, it is considered a medical appliance under sub-heading No. 9018.90.

2. Jurisdiction of the Present Bench:

The appellants argued that the present Bench has jurisdiction to hear the case, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. C.C., which relates to the rate of customs duty. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the case.

3. Determination of the Applicable Customs Duty:

The Tribunal reviewed the classification under various headings and sub-headings, including 9021.19 (orthopaedic appliance), 9018.20, and 9018.90 (medical equipment). It concluded that the Bio Health Heater is not an orthopaedic appliance but fits the description of a medical appliance under sub-heading No. 9018.90. The Tribunal emphasized the product's primary function and its identification by consumers as a medical appliance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Fusebase Eltoto Ltd.

4. Confiscation and Penalty Imposed by the Collector of Customs:

The Collector of Customs had confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lacs, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act. The Tribunal found no justification for the redemption fine or penalty, given the correct classification under sub-heading No. 9018.90. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal ruled that the "Bio Health Heater" is correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 9018.90 of the Tariff as a medical appliance. The appeals were allowed, and the cross-objections filed by the Revenue were disposed of accordingly. The redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs were set aside.