Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
1998 (8) TMI 314 - AT - CustomsBenefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. not available in terms of exclusion clause therein. - Confiscation of goods
Issues:
1. Whether the imported defibrillator with an ECG monitor qualifies for duty-free importation under the Open General Licence (OGL) entry. 2. Whether the imported goods are entitled to duty-free importation under Notification 208/81. 3. Whether there was deliberate misdeclaration in the bill of entry. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported a defibrillator with an ECG monitor, claiming it as medical equipment under the OGL entry. The department contended that the goods did not contain a cardiograph and thus were not covered by the OGL entry. The appellant argued that the ECG monitor is equivalent to a cardiograph based on medical definitions. The tribunal agreed that the monitor could be considered a cardioscope, making the goods eligible for OGL benefits. 2. Regarding the duty-free importation under Notification 208/81, the notification excluded specific items like ECG recorders, cardioscopes, and ECG monitors. The tribunal interpreted the exclusion clause to apply even if the excluded items were built into the defibrillator. It concluded that the intention of the notification was to allow only the essential components of the defibrillator along with specified accessories, denying the benefit of the exemption to the goods. 3. The department alleged deliberate misdeclaration in the bill of entry, as it separately listed the defibrillator and cardioscope. However, the tribunal noted that the word "with" was added between the descriptions, indicating a possible correction rather than separate declarations. It found no evidence of intentional misdeclaration and set aside the confiscation of goods on this ground. In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant. However, the appeal was otherwise rejected, affirming the denial of duty-free importation under Notification 208/81 for the imported goods.
|