9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition to levying customs duty amounting to Rs. 63,02,542/-. The order also directs finalization of provisional assessment in regard to RF Shield imported subsequently denying the exemption under the said Notification No. 64/88. Further, a penalty of Rs. 20 Lakhs has been imposed on the appellant-company. The other noticees being the Directors of the appellant-company and Director of the company that purchased the MRI equipment from the appellant have not been penalized taking a lenient view. 2.Initially, there was a dispute in regard to grant of exemption under Notification No. 64/88 to the MRI scanner imported against CDEC No. Z-37036/5/90/MG, dated 14-5-1990 issued by DGHS. The dispute had reached the Apex Court, where it was settled acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Apex Court Orders. 4.It is the case of the Department that the appellants never intimated the Customs authorities regarding sale of the impugned scanners and they have violated the conditions of Notification No. 64/88 as well as the undertaking given to the Apex Court. The Department further contends that the CDEC dated 14-5-1990 issued by DGHS has been subsequently withdrawn under orders of the Delhi High Court by DGHS on 20-11-1997. Hence, the Department has held the impugned scanner as well as RF Shield imported subsequently to be ineligible for exemption under the said Notification No. 64/88, the impugned scanner has also been held liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5.We have heard rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned including the Police personnels when complaints of non-compliance were made by the indigent persons, on denial of such treatment in the concerned hospital or diagnostic centers, as the case may be." 6.It is clear from the above that the obligation under the said notification requires to be continuously fulfilled subsequent to the import. The Apex Court also observed that the conditions in the Notification are required to be strictly enforced by all concerned including the police personnel and that coercive official action is required to be taken in the event of default. The same notification has again been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre - 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Customs. Firstly, this undertaking given to the Apex Court cannot be construed as an empty formality. There has to be a purpose behind giving such a notice. Since the Notification itself has a continuing obligation, such a notice is obviously required for the purpose of alerting the Customs authorities to take steps for securing revenue in the event of the importers wanting to sale the impugned goods on which duty exemption has been availed subject to fulfilment of post import conditions. It has also been disputed by the Customs department that such a notice was ever given. They have no record of having received the letter from the appellants in their office records. The appellants have not produced any proof of receipt except stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the undertaking given to the Apex Court does not get extinguished. 9.The exemption under the said Notification No. 64/88 is also subject to certificate from DGHS. The certificate dated 14-5-1990 has been subsequently withdrawn on 20-11-1997. This is an additional reason for dis-allowing the exemption in addition to the failure to discharge the continuing obligations regarding free treatment. The appellants have contended that they were not initially allowed exemption with reference to the DGHS certificate dated 14-5-1990 but under another certificate issued as per directions of the High Court in 1991. It is their contention that withdrawal of the certificate dated 14-5-1990 on 20-11-1997 is irrelevant. To a query from the Bench, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penal action against him. However, as noted above, no penalty has been imposed on him under the impugned order. The said M/s. Florence Medical-cum-Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. have also not filed any appeal against the confiscation of the goods before us. It is clear that M/s. Florence Medical-cum-Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. have neither represented before the Adjudicating Commissioner nor before this Tribunal regarding the alleged breach of Section 124 despite a copy of the Show Cause Notice issued to them and a copy of the adjudication order sent to them. Having sold the impugned scanner, the appellants are no longer the owner of the same by their own reasoning and, therefore, they cannot invoke the provision of Section 124 which applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
