2006 (4) TMI 412 - AT - Customs

Scanner - CT scanner imported at concessional rate - Words and Phrases - Cardiovascular and angiography

Summary

Issues:
Import of light speed Computed Tomography Scanner (Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System) at a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dispute over eligibility for exemption, appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 399/2003-Cus., determination of whether the CT Scanner qualifies as a Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 399/2003-Cus., where the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, upheld the decision of the Original Authority that the imported goods, a light speed Computed Tomography Scanner, were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellants claimed that the CT Scanner was a Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System and should qualify for the exemption. The Original Authority concluded that the impugned goods did not meet the criteria for the benefit of the Notification, leading the appellants to approach the Commissioner (A) for redress. The Commissioner (A) affirmed the Original Authority's decision, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Tribunal for relief.

During the proceedings, the advocate for the appellant argued that the CT Scanner was indeed designed for Angiography Cardiac and Vascular applications, supported by technical literature, doctor's certificates, and articles from medical journals. The advocate contended that the lower authorities erred in their findings and that the equipment's capabilities for additional functions should not disqualify it from the exemption Notification. Citing various case laws, the advocate emphasized that equipment capable of multiple functions should not be denied the benefit of an exemption Notification.

Upon careful review of the case records and the relevant Notification, the Tribunal noted that the entry in the Notification included "Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System." The Tribunal examined literature submitted by the appellants explaining CT Angiography, which highlighted the equipment's capability to perform Angiography procedures. A certificate from a Radiology Director further confirmed the CT Scanner's predominant use in Angiography procedures. The Tribunal, considering expert opinions and the equipment's intended use, concluded that the CT Scanner imported by the appellants qualified as a Cardiac and Vascular Angiography System. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted consequential relief to the appellants based on the equipment's suitability for the exemption Notification.

In the final judgment pronounced on 12-4-2006, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the expert opinions and the equipment's predominant use in Angiography procedures. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' conclusions inconsistent with the evidence presented and extended the benefit of the exemption Notification to the appellants based on the equipment's functionality and intended application in Cardiac and Vascular Angiography.