Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1735 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTViolation of import conditions - Import of two machinery, Echo Cardiograph with colour mapping with standard accessories and computerized stress system with treadmill, for specified purpose - petitioners did not treat 40% of its outdoor patients free and 10% of its indoor poor patients free - Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (C.D.E.C.) issued under N/N. 64/88 has been withdrawn - independent application of mind not done - principles of natural justice - Held that:- It is not in dispute before us that the petitioner was not given copy of report submitted by the team sent for inspection on deputation of Rosha Committee. Similarly, report of C.D.E.C. Committee drawn extensively in Paragraph No. 14 of the impugned order, is also never made available to them. For total indoor patients of 2762, during above period, free indoor patients are shown at 213, which is little less than 10%. The total free patients admitted during this period are 3480, while total free patients admitted are shown to be 931, in chart at Page No. 215 (marked as Annexure-L) with the petition. Again this proportion is little above 25%. In last chart at Page No. 216 (marked as Annexure-M) with the petition, this percentage is also reflected. Impugned order does not comment upon correctness of or relevance of position appearing in these charts. In absence of report of Rosha Committee or C.D.E.C. Committee, it is not very clear why these assertions of treatment of outdoor patients, indoor poor patients by petitioners have not been considered or relied upon by Respondent No. 1 in the impugned order - when there were two sets of contention before Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 ought to have verified original records and thereafter recorded a finding on correctness or otherwise of assertions of the petitioners. This exercise also has not been undertaken. We find that Respondent No. 1 has mechanically acted upon the report of team deputed by the Rosha Committee and the findings of C.D.E.C. Committee. We therefore, find that there is no independent application of mind by Respondent No. 1 to the controversy. Petitioners gave specific figures of percentage and then, also claimed benefit of persons/patients who visited their camps. The question, Whether there was any diagnostic treatment during those camps is a disputed question, which cannot be answered without recording proper finding on facts. Petitioners have supported their assertions by producing necessary documents maintained under Income-tax Rules. Those documents have been discarded without assigning any reason - In any case, there was no report and there is no finding by Respondent No. 1 or any authority that free treatment was denied by petitioners to any body or in any deserving case. Is free treatment extendable even to patients with capacity to pay and forced upon them or then the deficit in number of OPD or poor indoor patients can be carried forward and attended to in future. The petitioners have declined to pay necessary amount for seeking release of the confiscated/seized machineries, and had requested the Authorities to take the same back - we quash and set aside the order dated 1-3-2004. However, we direct Respondent No. 1 to proceed further in the matter as per law, if at this stage, such a measure is still necessary - petition allowed in part.
|