9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining whether imported Health Oxygen Equipments and Portable Multi-functional massagers are freely importable as medical equipment under the EXIM Policy or are restricted consumer goods. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of the imported goods under Heading 9019.10 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant argues that the items should be considered as medical instruments and allowed for import under Open General License (OGL) due to their medical nature. They provide technical literature and a certificate from a Senior Physiotherapist to support their claim that the goods are used for medical purposes, specifically in physiotherapy departments of hospitals. The respondent counters this argument by demonstrating that the equipment is primarily for physical exercises and not exclusive to medical use. They highlight that the goods have been classified as Mechano Therapy appliances/apparatus, which fall under the 'Restricted' category, requiring a specific license for import. The respondent contends that the goods being classified under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act does not automatically make them freely importable as medical equipment. Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Additional Collector of Customs made detailed observations regarding the nature of the imported goods. The Collector noted that the equipment functions as general-purpose exercisers, akin to devices for physical exercises like dumb-bells or bull-workers. The Collector emphasized that the equipment does not require medical expertise for usage and can be employed by any individual, indicating its classification as consumer goods. Agreeing with the Collector's observations, the judgment concludes that the Health Oxygen Equipment and Portable Multi-functional massagers are general-purpose health equipment and exercisers, not qualifying as medical equipment for free import under OGL. As a result, the liability for confiscation of the goods is upheld due to the absence of a required license. However, considering the appellant's past import history without objections, the redemption fines are reduced. Additionally, since there is no evidence of malafide intent, the imposition of personal penalties is set aside, leading to the disposal of the appeals with the mentioned modifications in fines. In summary, the judgment clarifies the classification of the imported goods as general-purpose exercisers rather than medical equipment, leading to the decision on confiscation and fines based on the absence of the necessary license for import.
|
