Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Hissar Medical Diagnostic And ... vs Cc on 22 February, 2006
ORDER K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited filed Bill of Entry No. 105274 dated 06.11.1992 for import of one Toshiba make TCT 300S Whole Body CT Scanning machine. It was cleared on 12.11.1992 without payment of duty on the strength of customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988. Show cause notice dated 24.5.1997 was issued to M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited that they were required to submit the installation certificate from Directorate General of Health Services within a reasonable period and no such certificate was produced by them demanding duty of Rs. 79,11,176/-. This show cause notice is still said to pending for decision.
2. To check the fulfillment of other conditions prescribed under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988, the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Haryana conducted an audit of this Hospital on 04.10.1996 and submitted their findings. On the basis of their findings, it was alleged that-
(i) The percentage of outdoor patients to whom free treatment was given was far below the requirement of the said notification.
(ii) Indoor patient facility was started after a lapse of two years from the date of import of scanner.
(iii) It cannot be ensured that that all the indoor patients whose monthly income was less than Rs. 500/- were treated free as the income of the patients/guardian was not found recorded in any of the records maintained by the hospital.
(iv) The CT scanner was not necessary for running or maintenance of the hospital.
Therefore, it appeared that the hospital did not satisfy the post importation conditions of the Notification No. 64/88-Cus and thereby making the machine liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and hospital by this act was liable for penal action under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 29.5.97 was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 79,11,176/- under proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act and the CT scan machine was proposed to be confiscated and penalty was proposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner under Order-in-original No. KKN/CC/ICD/TKD/37/96 dated 14.10.1997. Appeal was filed before the Tribunal against this order of the Commissioner alongwith the stay application. During the course of hearing of the stay application, the Tribunal found that there was a request from the appellant for supply of the copy of audit report which was not supplied to them by the department and thus there have been violation of principles of natural, justice. Therefore, the case was disposed of with a direction to the adjudicating authority to supply the copy of audit report and on supplying such report the appellants were directed to file additional reply and thereafter the adjudicating authority was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving personal hearing. After complying with the directions given by the Tribunal under order No. 154-155/98-NB dated 12.02.1998, the Commissioner readjudicated the show cause notice dated 29.5.97 under the impugned order and demanded duty of Rs. 27,06,700/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 114A of the customs Act. The CT scanner in question was also confiscated and option was given to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 35 lakhs.
3. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that the Commissioner has decided the issue on the basis of the letter of Directorate General of Health Services dated 12.12.1997 withdrawing the custom duty exemption certificate. There was no reference of this letter in the show cause notice which was issued earlier to this letter, therefore, the Commissioner should not have relied on this letter of Directorate General of Health Services. The Custom duty exemption certificate issued to them by DGHS was valid at the time of importation of the CT Scanner. Therefore, they have validly imported it under exemption at the time of clearance of the goods from the customs. The show cause notice was not amended by the Commissioner after issue of the letter dated 12.12.1997 by Directorate General of Health Services canceling the customs exemption certificate which should have been done by them if this letter was required to be relied upon. However, on this the Commissioner has not given any finding in his order and he simply relied on the letter dated 12.12.1997 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. The Commissioner has also given finding that the percentage of outdoor patient to whom free treatment was given was far below the minimum percentage of 40% as prescribed in notification No. 64/88-Cus and the indoor facility was started by the noticee after a lapse of two years from the date of import of scanner. It was argued that they had in reply to the show cause notice in para 3.3 had given information to Civil Surgeon, Haryana Government, vide their letter dated 30.01.1993 in which it was clarified that the scanner has been installed in the hospital and started functioning w.e.f. 28.11.1992. It was also argued that they have met the criteria of tree treatment to more than 40% of the outdoor patients and more than 10% of the indoor patients. This information was supplied by the Civil Surgeon, Hissar to Director General of Health Services, Haryana under letter No. GI/94/2477 dated 12.07.1994 (page 125 of the paper book). They had submitted necessary evidences in the form of this letter and also the free camp held by them, through newspaper, advertisements and the list of patients before the adjudicating authority. It was also argued that they were admitting the patients in the hospital as is apparent from the hand bill placed on page 128 of paper book Annexure XXIII to the appeal petition. In the hand bill it is mentioned that on 21.02.1993 there will be a free camp and there is facility of admission in CT scan and neurology center. Necessary evidences in the form of photographs of free beds were also produced before the adjudicating authority. Affidavit was also filed by the Managing Director of M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic and Hospitals Limited wherein, it was stated that a committee comprising of Doctors from Civil Hospital Hissar visited the hospital and the committee conducted a thorough inspection of the hospital-including its infrastructure, equipments and records showing details of indoor and outdoor patients treated by the hospital on payment of charges as well as free and after verification of the data Civil Surgeon, Hissar in letter No. GI/93 dated 1.7.1993 sent a report to Director General Health Services, Haryana indicating clearly that the data of patients furnished by the hospital is verified. The appellant also furnished to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Hissar a complete data of patients treated by the hospital during the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 and all the records containing the said data details were produced to him and on verification he did not find any discrepancy in the data. Thus, it was argued that they have fulfilled post importation conditions of notification No. 64/88-Cus.
3.1. It was also argued that for confiscation of the CT scanner, the show cause notice under para of proposed confiscation only under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, whereas under the impugned order the Commissioner has confiscated the CT Scanner under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Thus, the order of confiscation has been done under a different provision which was not invoked in the show cause notice. The appellant had not made any mis-declaration of the goods and these were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The goods were also not imported contrary to any prohibision imposed and hence these were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the order of confiscation is bad in law.
3.2. It was argued that in the show cause notice penalty is proposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act and the Commissioner has imposed a penalty under the said provision. This provision of the Customs Act for imposition of penalty is not applicable in their case as this was introduced in the Customs Act by the Finance Act, 1996. The CT Scanner was imported in 1992, therefore, this penalty provision could not have been invoked for imposition of penalty for an act of 1992. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellants may be set aside. It was also argued that Section 114A is for imposition of penalty where duty has not been levied or has been short levied or interest has not been charged or paid or part paid or erroneously refunded by reason of the collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. In the present case, there is no collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, therefore, provisions of Section 114A are not applicable. Provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty as it is not alleged in the show cause notice and the ingredients of Section 112 of the Customs Act are different from the ingredients of Section 114A.
3.3. It was further pleaded that the Commissioner has not considered the record maintained by them and the information supplied by the Civil Surgeon to the Director General of Health Services, Haryana in respect of outdoor and indoor patients treated free. The letter of installation, copies of the registers and records of indoor outdoor patients, free camps and newspaper cuttings placed are at page 64, 125, 66, 107 of the appeal memo. Since all these evidences were not considered by the Commissioner while coming to the conclusion. Therefore, the order requires to be set aside.
3.4. Reliance was placed by the appellants on the following decisions in support of the various contentions raised by them in their appeal.
(a) Sri Sathya Sai Inst. High Medi. Sciences v. Union of India for the proposition that condition that the persons availing said exemption, to notify in local newspaper every month that the total number of indigent patients treated free was at least 40% with full particulars and addresses of such indigent patients as laid down by Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd., case, overruled by Larger Bench of Supreme Court since it was prerogative of the Government to grant exemption and impose appropriate condition for the same and Supreme Court need not to interpose further conditions. However, Government may issue appropriate condition, if necessary, for fulfillment of said exemption.
(b) Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar Where it was held that on the date of the import the goods were covered by a valid import licence. The subsequent cancellation of licence is of no relevance nor does it retrospectively render the import illegal
(c) Hospital India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Where it was held that para 2 of table to notification No. 64/88-Cus indicates that the certificate required from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was a post importation certificate when it says that the hospital was required to give certificates to the extent of 40% free services to outdoor patients and 10% to other patients. No allegation regarding requirement of certificate from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was made in the show cause notice. The show cause notice alleges about non fulfillment of conditions (a), (b) and (c) of para 2 of the table to notification. The Commissioner has gone beyond the terms of allegation made in the show cause notice.
(d) Blue Blends (India) Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2001 (136) ELT 411 (Tri. Mumbai) - for the proposition that effect of cancellation is not to render the licence invalid for any imports of goods made before such cancellation.
(e) Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd., v. Union of India 2001 (46) RLT 249 (Mad.) - where it was held in para 43 that the petitioner those who benefited the tax exemption are bound to discharge the liability during the period when the said notification No. 64/88 was in force. Hence it is always open to authorities to enforce such obligation only during the period when the Notification No. 64/88-Cus was in force and not for the subsequent period.
(f) Inys Medical Research Society v. Dir. General of Health Services - It was cited for the proposition that medical equipment import under Notification No. 64/88-Cus on eligibility certificate issued earlier by Director General (Health Services) to petitioner for duty free import of certain machines, cancelled without issuing any show cause notice to petitioner directing it to show cause why certificate issued not to be cancelled and without affording an opportunity of being heard to petitioner, the principles of natural justice violated and such order was set aside.
(g) Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC) - to the effect that Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is prospective in operation. Illegality committed prior to insertion of said section in the Act cannot be the subject matter of penalty under the said provision for the past period.
4. On behalf of the Revenue, it was argued that the order of the Commissioner is based on the fact and he has correctly decided the issue. The custom duty exemption certificate which was issued to the appellant was cancelled by the Director General of Health Services under his letter dated 12.12.1997. It was argued that in the said letter it is clearly mentioned that the appellants were given 15 days time by letter dated 09.07.1997 to send the data/information to State Government with copy to the D.G. Health Services, New Delhi for verification and sending their recommendation but no reply/recommendation was received from the State Government in their case for fulfillment of the conditions laid-down under notification No. 64/88. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Ltd., is only a diagnostic center not having indoor treatment facilities and therefore it is not fulfilling the conditions for availing and retaining customs duty exemption certificate issued to it accordingly the certificate was withdrawn/cancelled. It was argued that this withdrawal/cancellation is in respect of the whole body CT Scanner model TCT 300 S Toshiba, Even though this withdrawal has been done at a subsequent date but it is in respect of only that certificate which was issued to them on 04.09.1997. Therefore, after withdrawal of this certificate dated 04.09.1992 and its cancellation the appellants were not entitled for duty free import of the CT Scanner in dispute. Therefore, the Commissioner has correctly relied on this letter dated 12.12.1997 of Director General of Health Scheme withdrawing/canceling the custom duty exemption certificate and he was not required to look into the other conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988 as the appellant has no custom duty exemption certificate with them and accordingly they were not entitled for the exemption granted under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. It was also argued that the appellants have not fulfilled the other conditions of the Notification. The CT Scan center building have no facility for indoor patients. As per report of the team of Doctors (page 60) of paper book, it is clear that the indoor patients ward was only in hospital wing. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:
(a) Kailash Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Centre P. Ltd. v. D.G. of Health Services reported as where it was held that Diagnostic center is not a hospital within the meaning of Notification No. 64/88-Cus.
(b) Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India reported as wherein para 2 it was held that the very notification granting exemption must be construed to cast continuing obligation on the part of all those who have obtained the certificate from the appropriate authority and on the basis of that to have imported equipments without payment of customs duty to give free treatment atleast to 40 per cent of out door patients as well as would give free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to the families with an income of less than Rs. 500/- p.m..... If on such inquiry the authorities are satisfied that the continuing obligation are not being carried out then it will be fully open to the authority to ask the person who have availed of benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipment which has been imported without payment of customs duty.
4.1. Revenue has placed main reliance on the fact that the appellant has failed to provide free treatment to 40% of the outdoor patients. The figure furnished by them for the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 do not fulfilled the criteria of free treatment given to atleast 40% of the outdoor patients. The figure furnished by the appellant on page 179 although shows that they have given free treatment to 39% of the outdoor patients but in fact in this figure they have added 26 patients referred to by M/s Gulati Hospital and they were not the patients of the appellant. If these patients are excluded from the total number of patients then the percentage of patients who received free treatment is reduced to 36%. Similarly, in case of 1993-94, the percentage worked out by the appellants includes the figures of associated hospitals. When the correct figures are taken then the percentage of free out door patients is less than 40%. They have not given the correct percentage during the year 1994-95. The figure worked out by them shows the percentage of free patients as 40%, although on actual calculation on their own figures it works out to 28%. Thus, during these three years i.e. 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 the percentage of free outdoor patients is less than 40% whereas the requirement of the notification is atleast 40% outdoor patients who get free treatments.
4.2. It was also argued that atleast 10% of the indoor patients whose family income is less Rs. 500/- p.m. should be treated free. The appellants have failed to show any record regarding the income of the family of person, to whom free treatment was given. Therefore, they have failed to establish that they have given free treatment to the indoor patients whose family income is less than Rs. 500/- p.m. Thus, the appellants have failed to fulfill the condition of Notification No. 64/88-Cus and they are not entitled for the exemption.
4.3. It was further argued that in para 5 of the show cause notice issued to the appellant, there is a. mention of the fact that the hospital did not satisfy the post importation condition of the above notification thereby making the scanner liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in para 9 of the show cause notice instead of 111(o) there is a mention of 111(d) of the Customs Act. This appears to be a typographical error as 111(d) is nowhere mentioned in the entire show cause notice except in para 9(ii) of the show cause notice whereas the proposal for confiscation under 111(o) has been made out in para 5 of the show cause notice. It was argued that even if there is a wrong mention of the sub section, i.e. 111(d) instead of 111(o), this does not vitiate the order of confiscation passed by the Commissioner. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of this contention.
(i) N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Ors. v. The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., reported as wherein para 14 of the order it was held that if the appellants have power to issue notice either under Rule 10-A or 9(2) the fact that the notice refers specifically to a particular rule, which may not be applicable, will not make the notice invalid on that ground.
(ii) Durgo Bai and Anr. v. State of Punjab where it was held that the punishment prescribed under Section 21 and 22 are the same by reason of citation of wrong section in the charge, it is not so that the appellants were handicapped from meeting the case against them or otherwise suffered any prejudice.
(iii) Roche Products Limited v. Collector of Customs reported as for the proposition that exercise of powers but with reference to another Rule does not vitiate the order.
(v) Union of India v. Khazan Singh reported as 1992 AIR (79) 1535 (SC) wherein it is held in para 6 that it is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order can not invalidate the same.
(vi) State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla reported in AIR 85 (72) 470(SC) - mere recital of a wrong provision of law does not have the effect of invalidating an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority making it.
It was argued that although in the show cause notice there was a proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 114A and the Commissioner has also imposed the penalty under the said section, however, the penalty in the present case should, have been imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The facts narrated in the show cause notice clearly lead, to the proposition that the appellants has failed, to fulfill the post importation condition of the Notification. No. 64/88-Cus in respect of the CT Scanner. Thus, in relation to this case they had omitted to do the act which they were required to do and that omission on their part have rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Therefore, they were liable for penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner by wrongly mentioning Section 114A should be the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
4.4. Finally it was argued that it is a fact that the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the various documents regarding treatment given to the indoor patients and outdoor patients as he has decided the case only one ground that the custom duty exemption certificate was withdrawn and cancelled by the Director General Health Services. Therefore, he had not considered the other grounds. On the appellants plea that the figure of indoor and outdoor patients and those who availed facility of CT Scanner are duplicated to some extent, it was argued that all these documents regarding free treatment given to outdoor patients and indoor patients as has been furnished by the appellant to Director General Health Services through Civil Surgeon, Hissar and submitted to the department in their appeal petition and also before the Commissioner. Now these figures cannot be changed as has been claimed by the appellant. This plea cannot be taken at this stage as the appellants right from 1992 till today have not taken this plea either in writing or oral before the various authorities including audit party wherever the figures were given by them.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the Commissioner under the impugned order has demanded the duty and confiscated the scanner on the ground that the customs duty certificate issued to the appellants by Director General Health Services was withdrawn and cancelled by him under his letter dated 12.12.1997. The appellants have argued that the letter dated 12.12.1997 by which the custom duty exemption certificate was withdrawn and cancelled was not mentioned in the show cause notice as show cause notice was issued before issue of letter dated 12.12.1997. Thereafter the show cause notice was not amended giving them an opportunity to deal with that. It was also pointed out that they have challenged the letter dated 12.12.1997 of the Director General Health Services in the Civil Court in 2005. Admittedly, when the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, there was no civil suit pending in any Court against the withdrawal/cancellation of the certificate by the Director General Health Services. Therefore, Commissioner has taken that certificate into consideration while deciding the show cause notice.
14. We find that even without going into the withdrawal/cancellation of the customs duty exemption certificate, the material which was before the Commissioner was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to give free treatment to atleast 40% of the outdoor patients and atleast 10% of the indoor patients as the audit report of Accountant General which was also supplied to the appellant by the Commissioner was before the Commissioner and which has after examining the records of the appellants had indicated the factual position. During hearing of the appeal, we have extensively heard the appellant of this issue and we find that from the records submitted by the appellant in their appeal petition it is very clear that during the year 1992-93 the appellant had not given the treatment to atleast 40% of the outdoor patients by their own calculation as they have given such treatment to only 39% of the patients. This is clear from their letter placed on page 179 of paper book. The letter is addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Hissar. Another letter addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Haryana (page 69 to 71) of paper book where they have mentioned that during the year 1992-93 free treatment was given to only 39% of the outdoor patients. During 1993-94, the appellants have added the figures of patients of associated hospitals. If the free treatment given to patients of Associated hospitals are taken out then the percentage is far below the minimum requirement of 40% and they have shown the percentage as 41% which is totally misleading. As regards to year 1994-95 the appellant have worked out the figure of the out door patients given free treatment to 40% whereas it actually worked out to 28% only. This was admitted by the appellant during the hearing that the 40% was wrongly shown the correct figure is 28%.
6. We also find that for giving free treatment to 10% of the patients whose family monthly income is less than Rs. 500/- p.m. no records were maintained by the appellant. They could not produced such records during the proceedings before the Commissioner. Therefore, the audit has correctly pointed out that they have not maintained the record of the patients taking free treatment where family income is less than Rs. 500/- p.m. as no income is mentioned in the record. It is, therefore, very difficult to conclude for any authority whether free treatment was given to any patients below the income of Rs. 500/- p.m. The appellant in their appeal has pointed out that the minimum wages in the Haryana are Rs. 1500/- p.m. and therefore there was no patients below the income of Rs. 500/- p.m. which can hardly be accepted. Everybody may not be employed for the wages under the Minimum Wages Act.
7. In these circumstances, we find that the appellants have failed to fulfill the criteria of giving free treatment to 40% of the outdoor patients and 10% of the indoor patients. Thus, they have violated the post importation conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus and thus have become ineligible for retaining the exemption granted under the Notification No. 64/88-Cus read with the bond executed thereunder. In these circumstances, the Commissioner has correctly demanded the customs duty from the appellants for the reasons given above.
8. Regarding confiscation of the CT Scanner, we find that there was a clear mention in the show cause notice in para 5 that the said CT Scanner was liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Even if in the final order it is written as 111(d) it does not vitiate the confiscation. To confiscate CT Scanner under Section 111(o) the Commissioner has given reasons on page 46 of paper book (page - 30 of his order) to the following effect-
Besides, by not complying with the condition of the notification, they attracted the mischief of Section 111(o) .
He has however also observed above that sub-section was not invoked in the notice, but we find that in para 5 of the show cause notice it was stated as under:
It thus appears that the hospital did not satisfy the post importation conditions of the above notification thereby making the machine liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the hospital had misdectared material particulars regarding their eligibility to the above notification, the CT Scan was also liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
We find that there is typographical error in stating that Sub-section 111(o) was 'not' actually invoked which was although invoked in para 5 of show cause notice. Even otherwise wrong mention of Section has not prejudiciously affected the defence of the appellant as they were fully aware that the confiscation is also proposed under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and actually dealt with in the show cause notice as pointed out above. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner regarding confiscation of the CT Scanner machine which should be treated confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.
9. Regarding imposition of penalty under Section 114A, we find that the show cause notice proposes penalty under the said Section. We find that penalty cannot be imposed under Section 114A as there was no misdeclaration at the time of clearance of goods at the time of import. The appellant has not fulfilled the post importation conditions for which Section 112(a) was applicable. The ingredient of Section 114A are entirely different from the ingredients of Section 112(a) under which penalty was imposable. Since no proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) has been made in the show cause notice nor the same has been discussed by the Commissioner in his order, now penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112(a). In this connection, we refer to para 5 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise, U.P. reported in 2005 (190) RLT 433 (SC).
The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that neither the show cause notice nor the order of the Commissioner specified which particular clause of Rule 173Q had been allegedly contravened by the appellant. We are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal is correct. Rule 173Q contains six clauses the contents of which are not same. It was, therefore, necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which the assessee was liable under the provisions of the 173Q. This not having been done the Tribunal's finding cannot be faulted. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Therefore penalty imposed under Section 114A is not sustainable. We find that the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner is Rs. 35 lakhs which is more than 50% of the value of the goods. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this amount is on higher side and requires to be reduced. In our view amount of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) will be sufficient amount for redemption fine in the facts and circumstances of this case.
11. We, therefore, uphold the order of confiscation of CT Scanner under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 35 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). The penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act is set aside.
12. Appeal is thus, partly allowed.
[Pronounced & dictated in the open Court on 22.02.2006].