9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was presented under BE No. 004054 dated 8-5-90, claiming exemption under Notification 64/88 Cus., dated 1-3-88. The said goods were cleared provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the strength of a P.D. Bond with Bank Guarantee pending production of required certificates under Notification 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88. The benefit of the said notification was available to appellant on the production of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate given by DGHS. In this case the exporters/appellants failed to produce customs duty exemption certificate and installation certification in terms of the conditions of the said notification. The provisional assessments were not finalized because of non-production of the said certificate. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing order: "I, therefore, deny the benefit of notification 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-98 arid confirm the duty demand of Rs.37,03,546/- calculated on the assessable value of Rs.34,05,841/- under section 18(2) read with Section 143(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. I hold the imported equipment viz., Telecobaltherapy Unit type Alcyon 11N with treatment Couch No 9025 and Accessories valued at Rs.34,05,841/- liable to confiscation under 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I order redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh only). I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) on the importers, Bharat Cancer Hospital, Sadasharada Tumour & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., under Section 112(a) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission made at length by both sides and perused the records. 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. It is also on record that the appellant has failed to fulfill the post import conditions of treating the patients whose income is less than Rs.500/- per month. This, though being disputed by the learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the services rendered by them to the public at large, we feel that ends of justice will be met by reduction in redemption fine and penalty imposed on them. We find that redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of justice in this case. The impugned order to that extent is modified. 8. As regards the payment of interest, we find that the interest has been demanded under 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. In this case we find the question of invoking provisions of Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise and in the show cause notice also there is no proposal to do so. In the absence of any determination of the duty under Section 28(1) the question of payment of interest under Section 28AA does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
