2009 (5) TMI 417 - AT - Customs

Hospital equipments- Notification No. 64/88/Cus- . The issue involved in this case is whether the appellants is eligible for the benefit of notification 64/88-Cus.granting exemption to the import of the machineries provided the conditions are fulfilled. In this case we find that the appellant has not fulfilled the first and foremost condition of producing a certificate from DGHS for claiming the exemption. In the absence of any such certificate the benefit of the Notification of 64/88 is not available to the appellant. Held that- We find that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification of 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-98 and hence in view of this and also respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science and Others v. CC (ACC) Mumbai we hold that the confirmation of the demand of the duty as has been done by the Adjudicating authority is correct. The impugned Order to that extent is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant on this point is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Import of medical equipment under Notification 64/88-Cus., fulfillment of conditions, confiscation under Customs Act, 1962, denial of benefit of notification, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, payment of interest.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the import of a Telecobal therapy unit under Notification 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88, where the appellant failed to produce the required Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued by DGHS. The provisional assessments were not finalized due to non-compliance, leading to a show cause notice for final assessment, confiscation, and penalty imposition.

2. The Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit of the notification, confirmed a duty demand of Rs.37,03,546, and ordered confiscation of the imported equipment. However, redemption was allowed on payment of a fine of Rs.10,00,000 and a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 under the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The appeal raised by the appellants challenged the denial of benefits under the notification. The appellant argued that they had complied with the conditions by treating patients and reserving beds for the poor, but the DGHS certificate was withdrawn, rendering them ineligible for the exemption.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of eligibility for the notification benefit. It was noted that without the required certificate from DGHS, the appellant could not claim the exemption. The non-fulfillment of post-import conditions further supported the denial of benefits under the notification.

5. Upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision, the Tribunal found the appellant ineligible for the notification benefits. The confirmation of duty demand was deemed correct, citing non-compliance with the certificate requirement and post-import conditions as decisive factors.

6. Regarding the redemption fine and penalty, the Tribunal acknowledged the provisional clearance without the CDEC certificate, leading to confiscation. Considering the appellant's status as a hospital treating cancer patients, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively.

7. The Tribunal set aside the interest liability imposed under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no determination of duty under Section 28(1). The appeal was disposed of by upholding the duty demand and confiscation while modifying the redemption fine, penalty, and setting aside the interest liability.