2010 (5) TMI 412 - AT - Customs

Life saving drugs - life saving drugs was covered under Serial No. 50(A) of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. and Serial No. 80(A) of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. The controversy is with regard to the presence of glucose (carbohydrate) and electrolytes in admixture with amino acids - benefit of the notification is available to these intravenous amino acids - benefit would still be available even if sorbitol or glucose was also present along with amino acids - set aside the impugned order and allow these ap peals, but with the rider that this decision of ours shall not be a precedent for any period subsequent to the period of the subject imports.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated 28-2-1999 and No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 1-3-2000 regarding the benefit for imported goods described as "Intravenous Amino acid."
2. Whether the presence of carbohydrates and electrolytes in the imported goods disqualifies them from receiving the benefit of the notifications.
3. Comparison of Tribunal's decision in Tablets (India) Ltd. case with the present case.
4. Conflict between the Tribunal's decision and the Board's Circular No. 45/2000.

Analysis:

1. The core issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. and No. 16/2000-Cus. concerning the eligibility of imported goods labeled as "Intravenous Amino acid" for the benefits specified in the notifications. The goods imported by the appellant were composed of a mixture of Amino acids, glucose, and electrolytes. The original authority denied the benefit of the notifications, stating that "Intravenous Amino acid" should be free from carbohydrates and electrolytes to qualify. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the presence of carbohydrates and electrolytes should not exclude the amino acids from the notifications.

2. The appellant contended that the amino acids in the imported goods were the primary components and vital sources of proteins, essential for patients undergoing medical treatments. They argued that the inclusion of carbohydrates and electrolytes was necessary to ensure the optimal utilization of amino acids in protein synthesis. Citing medical literature and precedents, the appellant asserted that the notifications should apply to the goods despite the presence of additional components. The Tribunal noted that the functional ingredient remained "Intravenous amino acid" and that the benefit of the notifications extended to such life-saving drugs.

3. A comparison was drawn between the present case and the Tribunal's decision in Tablets (India) Ltd., where the benefit of a similar notification was extended to amino acids mixed with other substances. The Tribunal upheld its decision even after a civil appeal by the department was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found parallels with previous cases where the benefit of notifications was not limited to exclusive components, emphasizing the importance of the functional ingredient in determining eligibility for benefits.

4. The Tribunal addressed the conflict between its decision and the Board's Circular No. 45/2000, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision in Tablets (India) Ltd. was upheld by the Supreme Court, thus holding precedence over the Board's clarification. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, clarifying that its decision would not serve as a precedent for future cases beyond the period of the subject imports.