1999 (5) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Equipment imported being clearly a computerised treadmill eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Customs duty exemption on imported Treadmill under Notification No. 65/88-Cus.
2. Classification of Treadmill as a medical equipment or general exercise equipment.
3. Interpretation of the term "Computerised Treadmill" under the notification.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Customs duty exemption on imported Treadmill under Notification No. 65/88-Cus.

The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal disallowing Customs duty exemption on a Treadmill imported by the appellant under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The Collector (Appeals) ordered assessment under Chapter 95.06, stating that the Treadmill was not a dedicated diagnostic equipment and did not qualify as a medical equipment due to the absence of a connection through ECG.

Issue 2: Classification of Treadmill as a medical equipment or general exercise equipment.

The appellant argued that the Treadmill was a computerized one with a microprocessor-regulated motor control system, collecting and storing user data for personalized use. Reference was made to the owner's manual and a cardiologist's certificate, asserting that the Treadmill could be programmed based on the user's medical history for exercise tolerance. The respondent contended that the equipment was primarily for general physical exercise, not medical purposes, citing certificates supporting this view.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "Computerised Treadmill" under the notification.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Treadmill in question operated with a microprocessor, as specified in the owner's manual, regulating speed, storing user data, and offering pre-programmed choices. The Tribunal determined that since the notification exempted computerized treadmills and the imported equipment functioned solely with the in-built microprocessor, it qualified as a computerized treadmill. The Tribunal rejected the lower authorities' requirement for the Treadmill to be linked with an ECG machine for medical use, emphasizing that the notification did not impose such conditions. The Tribunal accepted the expert opinion of a cardiologist, supporting the necessity of the computerized treadmill for the importer post-bypass surgery, leading to the appeal's success and granting consequential relief as per law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS highlights the issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's interpretation, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decision-making process involved.