Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Choksi Brothers vs Commissioner Of Customs, Nhava Sheva on 24 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2000ECR104(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2001(134)ELT809(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The appellants herein imported goods described as Medical X-Ray film ie. Scopix MFB and Scopix ICIB brand unexposed photographic films and claimed classification of the same under heading 3701.10 and 3702.10 of the Central Excise Tariff as X-Ray films read with Notification No. 13/94 CE. The department was on the view from the details available that none of the films imported were for use for exposure by X-rays as the same were understood to be canted with emulsion sensitive to visible light radiation emitted by the various equipments used in digesting/imaging procedure viz. general purpose video imaging procedure and sine imaging procedure. Such films are said to be used for recording of images in CT, MRI, DBA Angiography, ultra sonography etc. Since the films were held to be not for direct use for X-rays, the classification claimed by the importers was not accepted and a show cause notice was issued to them on the ground that they had willfully mis-declared the goods since they were not medical X-ray films with an intention to evade payment of duties by way of wrongful availment of Notification No. 13/94. The confiscation of the goods were also proposed and penal action was also sought to be taken. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs held in the adjudication order that the goods in question are not meant and designed to be exposed by X-rays to obtain image of internal body organs. He held that although the body of a person is scanned by way of exposing to X-rays, it is not always necessary that same X-rays actually exposes the film, especially so in the angiography procedure where a number of pictures are taken of an imaging film by ways of expressing the same through a camera device, with visible light, while simultaneous monitoring of the internal organs goes on through a video monitor. He has found that angiography films are exposed by light although such light is generated proportional to the X-rays striking the X-ray sensitive surface for conversion to electric/electronic signals and in turn conversion of the same to visible light signals. The lower Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the importers holding that all medical equipments by these films are not for direct use with X-rays. Hence, these appeals.
2. We have heard Shri Manoj Sanklecha, counsel for the appellants and Shri Chopra, DR for the Revenue. We have carefully perused the literature placed on record by the importers. It is not disputed by the officers below that the films are used for recording of images in CT, MRI, DBA, angiography, ultra sonography etc. It is also not disputed that except for MRI X-ray film is used for recording of images in CT, angiography, ultra sonography etc. The material on record also bears out that the principle involved in the diagnostic technique in which the film in question is used in X-ray photography. In particular we may refer to extracts from the book "Cranial MRI and CT by S. Howard Lee". At page 2 of Chapter 1 of this book it is set out as below:-
" Classical Radiography In classical radiography, one attempts to record direct the x-ray intensity profiles in the form of a density distribution on a film. This process, though simple and direct forms the major limitation for classical radiography. The reason for this limitation is clear when one considers the fact that the patient is made up of a complex distribution of different tissues and structures. Any particular x-ray intensity profile emerging from the patient is thus the compounded sum of the attenuation which occurred in the patient along a particular ray path (the superimposition effect. Under these conditions contour can interfere with contour and shadow with shadow. What will finally be most prominent in the recorded image is the anatomic structure with the greatest absorption. The lesions can be 'lost" behind the ribs on the heart shadow or, in the skull, behind the fossa as well as along the base of calvarium. In practice, this information loss is compensated for in part by obtaining two view perpendicular to each other, such as anterior-posterior and lateral views or by obtaining oblique views."
At page 4 of Chapter 1 of this book, it is set out as below:-
" CLASSICAL TOMOGRAPH. Classical tomography was formulated in an attempt to minimise the problem of the superimposition of these dimensional information onto two dimensions. It is based on moving the x-ray source and film cassette relative to each other in such a way that the recorded images of anatomic structures within the patient are blurred. However, one anatomic layer (referred to as the focal, fulcrum, or pivot plane) within the patient remains stationary relative to the film and is recorded unblurred. Thus the third dimension (patient thickness, or depth) is removed, and presumably only the specified or pivot layer is recorded at full contrast and sharpness. It is clear, however, that the scatter problem is still present, as are the limitations of nonlinear film and screen system."
This book goes on to describe computed tomography. The relevant extract is reproduced below:-
"The computed tomography approach consists in isolating a specific planar volume within the patient. This plane, or slice, has a thickness z as seen in Fig. 1.6. The x-ray beam to be utilized passes through only this volume; thus superimposition and scatter effects are greatly minimized but not totally eliminated."
3. The reason for denial of parentage of the goods under heading claimed by the importers appears to be, from the impugned order, that the films are not for direct use with x-rays. However, in the face of the literature on record as well as the accepted position that except in the case of use in MRI, these films have use with X-rays, we are of the view that the goods in question will definitely fall for coverage as photographic films for X-rays as required for the purpose of classification under heading 3701.10 and 3702.10. Since we hold that the goods fall under the headings claimed by the importers, the benefit of Notification is also available to them.
4. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.