Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 903 - CESTAT AHMEDABADClassification of imported goods - Whether the imported insulated boxes designed for carrying vaccines and blood should be classified under Chapter Tariff Heading 39231030 (insulated ware) or under Heading 9018 (instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental, or veterinary sciences) - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the case of Becton Dickinson 1998 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS that it has consistent stand of the Tribunal and courts that if the items are specifically designed for medicinal use, the classification under heading 9018 should be preferred over any other classification given to similar products not used for medicinal purposes. In this regard, the Note 2(u) of the Chapter 39 also becomes relevant which also confirms the same view. The goods in the instant case are specifically designed for medical use and supplied to actual users. From the Note Note I(L), it is apparent that the special blood storage bottles are specifically excluded from Chapter 90 and Heading 9018. This also implies that ordinarily such bottles could have been classified under Chapter heading 9018 but the HSN has specifically excluded and take it to heading 7010. There is no such heading excluding the boxes made for vaccine from Chapter heading 9018. Moreover this note also holds that containers of plastic for carrying blood would be classifiable under Chapter Tariff Heading 9018. Thus, the argument of Revenue does not hold any merit. Revenue has relied on the assertion that the Commissioner has ignored Interpretative Rule 3(a) before applying Interpretative Rule 3(c) of the Interpretative Rules for classification of the Customs Tariff. We find no mention of these Rules in the orders of the Commissioner. We find that Commissioner has specifically come to the conclusion that goods are more specifically classifiable under heading 9018 as medical equipment and therefore, there is no application of Rule 3(c) in the order of the Commissioner. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, the same is dismissed.
|