Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1996 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (12) TMI 51 - SC - CustomsWhether a Diagnostic Centre is entitled to seek for issuance of a certificate to enable it to import equipments without payment of customs duty? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case more particularly in the absence of any denial of the allegations made by the appellant it is possible for the Court to come to the conclusion that there has been a discriminatory treatment between appellant and person similarly situated, and if so, whether there is any nexus for the same? Whether the appellant had complied with all the pre-conditions stipulated in the exemption notification for being entitled to the issuance of a certificate by the Respondent No. 2 for import of the equipment in question without payment of customs duty? Held that:- It is true that no importer can claim absolute exemption from payment of customs duty as a right. In the context of the dispute between the parties and on reading the exemption notification as a whole it appears that the Government intended to exempt such hospitals from payment of customs duty on import of equipments which are certified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the effect that it provides medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment. Thus a Diagnostic Centre run by a private individual purely on commercial basis may not be entitled to the exemption under the notification issued by the Central Government. The conclusion of the Central Government as well as that of the High Court on this score, therefore, may not be held to be incorrect and the appellant may not be entitled to seek for issuance of mandamus to Respondent No. 2 on this ground. On facts alleged it cannot be disputed that the appellant intended to import latest equipment for Cardio Vascular Imaging System. When Respondent No. 2 has already granted certificates in favour of several such Diagnostic Centres, as alleged in the Special Leave Application, refusal on his part to grant such certificate to the appellant without any justifiable reason tantamounts to a discriminatory treatment metted out to the appellant which on the face of it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of our conclusion, as aforesaid. We have no doubt in our mind that the order of Respondent No. 2 refusing to grant certificate to the appellant is liable to be struck down and the High Court also committed serious error in rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. As the appellant also had given necessary undertaking as required under the notification and, therefore, is otherwise entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification in question. Appeal allowed.The impugned order of Respondent No. 2 as well as that of the High Court are set aside and Respondent No. 2 is directed to re-consider the matter and issue necessary certificate to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Since the appellant has already imported the equipment on furnishing bank guarantee, on production of the necessary certificate issued by Respondent No. 2 enabling the appellant exemption from payment of customs duty the bank guarantee would stand discharged.
|