TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to refer to para 7 of notice, a perusal of which would indicate that confiscation of the subject goods was intended for violation of various conditions of Notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988. We find, that various conditions which were violated are indicated earlier in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the notice. Para 3 contained only one condition not various conditions. We, therefore, feel that reading the notice parawise and confining it watertight within each paragraph, would not be a correct way of construing a notice. It is to be read as a whole to find out as to whether the person concerned is made aware of the various grounds on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken as well as nature of the action. The view taken by the CEGAT on the point indicated above is erroneous and cannot be upheld. In any case, over and above all, it has not been in dispute that the Centre did not have inpatient facility. According to the condition of notification 10% of total beds in hospital are to be kept reserved for patients of the families having an income of less than ₹ 500/- per month. The case of the Centre, in this connection, is that they had an arrangement with another hosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of less than rupees five hundred per month, and keeping for this purpose at least 10 per cent of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients; and (c) ............................................................" Condition No. 4(iii) reads as under : - "4. Any such hospital which is in the process of being established and in respect of which the said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is of opini-on - (i) ............................................................... (ii) ............................................................... (iii) that such hospital would be in a position to start functioning within a period of two years, and (iv) ............................................................" The request of the Centre was accepted and the consignment was cleared on 23-8-1989 free of duty. 3.The Department found that the Centre had failed to produce the installation certificate in terms of Condition No. 4(iii) of the Notification and had also failed to observe other conditions, so the imported goods were liable to confiscation. Consequently the imported equipment was seized by the Department on 22-1-1998. The Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(iii), it has been found that its compliance by Centre was not required. It has, however, been found that Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was involved and Assistant Commissioner (Customs) was not the "proper officer" to issue show cause notice. The contention of the Centre was accepted. 7.The CEGAT further found that Para 3 of the notice relates to confiscation of the imported goods only on the ground of non-submission of certificate under Condition No. 4(iii) of the Notification. Non-compliance of the other conditions relating to free treatment, finds mention in Para 5 of notice saying, it appeared that the importer had no intention to fulfil the provisions laid down in the Notification and resorted to willful mis-statement and suppression of facts with a sole intention of evading customs duty. The Tribunal found that a new case was made out for confiscation of the imported goods on the ground of not providing free treatment, which was not the ground for confiscation in Para 3 of the notice. It was also held that providing free treatment to patients according to conditions of notification is a continuing obligation in view of Mediwell case (supra). The CEGAT allowed the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penally mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter : Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may at the request of the person concerned be oral." 10.It provides that an order for confiscation of the imported goods may be made after giving a show cause notice to the importer of the goods. It also provides for imposition of fine. Section 125 reads as under :- "Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.125. - (1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit : Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration is, as to whether or not a new ground or case for confiscation has been carved out as found by the CEGAT. According to the CEGAT, Para 3 of the notice relates to confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act on the ground of non-submission of certificate under Condition 4(iii) of the Notification. Therefore, confiscation could be ordered only on the ground of non-submission of certificate and on no other ground. It is further pointed out by the CEGAT that Para 5 of the notice relates to payment of customs duty only, on the ground of violation of conditions relating to providing free treatment as well as on account of non-submission of certificate under Condition No. 4(iii) of the Notification. In connection with the above argument, it would be relevant to refer to para 7 of notice, a perusal of which would indicate that confiscation of the subject goods was intended for violation of various conditions of Notification No. 64/88, dated 1-3-1988. We find, that various conditions which were violated are indicated earlier in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the notice. Para 3 contained only one condition not various conditions. We, therefore, feel that reading the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of less than Rs. 500/- per month. The case of the Centre, in this connection, is that they had an arrangement with another hospital in the proximity which is a sister concern of the Centre, with whom the Centre had entered into an agreement for reserving 10 per cent beds. Payments in respect of these inpatients is to be made by the Centre. We feel that the 10 per cent of the total number of beds are supposed to be reserved for patients of such families in the hospital where the equipment is installed. The purpose of the Notification for grant of exemption from payment of customs duty would not be served by making payment of expenditure incurred on some inpatients in some other hospital as alleged. It has also not been shown that alleged arrangements had the approval of the concerned authority or that it was brought to their notice at all. 14.The pleas raised by M/s. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre fail to convince us that it had been able to fulfil the conditions of the notification for providing free treatment to the patients as required therein. We find that the findings of the CEGAT on other points and the order passed are not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
