2005 (7) TMI 398 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Entitlement of Customs exemption Notification No. 16/2000 to Ultrasound scanners imported by the appellants.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the items imported have A-scan facility
The Technical Literature of the imported items indicated that the equipments had B-scan and M-scan facility. However, the appellants argued that the items imported had the facility of A-mode, which made them eligible for the exemption. The Adjudicating authority acknowledged that the imported items had A-scan facility based on various evidence presented, including letters from doctors confirming the presence of A-scan in the scanners.

Issue 2: Coverage under the exemption notification
The appellants contended that even if the items had additional features like B-scan and M-scan facility, they should still be covered by the exemption notification. The Adjudicating authority interpreted the notification to include Ultrasound equipment with A-scan facility or Pacchy meter, regardless of applications other than Ophthalmology. The history of similar notifications supported this interpretation, and the Budget Circular clarified that exemption should not be denied if the specified equipment is used in multiple applications.

Issue 3: Limitation to Ophthalmology
While earlier notifications restricted the exemption to equipment used in Ophthalmology, the present notification did not have such limitations. The Budget Circular further clarified that if equipment was used in multiple applications along with Ophthalmic applications, the exemption should still apply. The government's intention to extend the exemption to other applications strengthened the appellant's case.

Issue 4: Entitlement of Probes for exemption
The judgment also addressed whether the Probes imported along with the scanners were entitled to the exemption. It was concluded that if the scanners satisfied the conditions of the notification, the Probes necessary for using the scanner would also be eligible for the exemption.

Issue 5: Penalty under Section 114(a)/112(b)(ii)
Since the charge of mis-declaration could not be sustained due to the findings on the exemption eligibility, the penalties under Section 114(a)/112(b)(ii) were not leviable. Consequently, the duty demand was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in determining the entitlement of Customs exemption for the imported Ultrasound scanners, covering technical aspects, interpretation of the notification, and the applicability of penalties.