9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Eligibility for concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 66/88-Cus. for imported goods related to medical equipment covered by Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of goods imported by M/s. Central Scientific Instrument Corporation for the benefit of Notification No. 66/88-Cus., which provided a concessional rate of customs duty for component parts of goods specified under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. The imported goods were Stereo Zoom Binocular Head DZ-240 with paired WF 10X eyepieces and a fluorescent Ring illuminator for Stereo Zoom Binocular Microscope Model DZ 240 used in inspecting contact lenses. The appellants claimed the benefit of the notification, but the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, held that the goods were not eligible and imposed a redemption fine and a penalty. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing microscopes and scientific instruments, holding relevant licenses and registrations. They imported the goods described as component parts of Stereo Zoom Microscope for inspection of contact lenses. The adjudicating authority observed that the imported items had characteristics of finished components, except for a stand, and classified them under Heading No. 9011.10, denying the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 2(a) of the Rules of interpretation, which includes incomplete or unfinished articles if they have the essential character of the complete article. The goods were presented as components for the microscope, not as a single article. The Tribunal considered whether the imported goods had attained the approximate shape of the finished article and could only be used for completion into the finished article, following precedents set by the Tribunal in earlier cases. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the goods imported should not be classified as Stereostopic Microscope under Heading No. 9700.10. The Tribunal distinguished a majority decision in another case where the applicability of interpretative Rule 2(a) was not the main issue and held that the legal fiction created by the rule did not automatically apply to imports under the Customs Policy. The Tribunal disagreed with the view of the Additional Collector of Customs, setting aside the impugned order and holding the imported goods eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., subject to a Supreme Court decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the appellants based on their eligibility for the notification, as per the detailed analysis and legal interpretations presented in the judgment.
|
