Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellants had imported two medical equipments and cleared the same free of duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. vide Bills of Entry No. 44553 & 44555 dated 12.11.92. Such clearances were allowed on the basis of a Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) produced from the Director General of Health Services. An Installation Certificate was also required to be produced by the importer as they were shown as a hospital of category 4 in the CDEC. However, this certificate was not produced. Moreover, the exemption certificate was withdrawn by the DGHS after finding that the importer had violated the conditions of the notification and had become ineligible for the exemption thereunder. The Commissioner of Customs, who passed the impugned order, considered the findings of the DGHS to the effect that the importer had not fulfilled the condition of free treatment of outdoor patients during the post-importation period. It was found by the DGHS, on enquiries, that during the period 1992-93 to 1997-98, the impo'rter had given free treatment to outdoor patients only to a limited extent ranging between 6% & 8% whereas the stipulated minimum was 40% under the notification. It was, further, found by the DGHS that all indoor patients whose family income was less than Rs. 500 per month had not been given free treatment in terms of the notification. These findings of the DGHS, duly communicated to the Commissioner, formed the basis for the finding of the latter that the importer had committed breach of the crucial post-importation conditions under the notification, thereby rendering the imported goods liable to confiscation as also rendering themselves liable to penalty. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority held that the goods covered under the two Bills of Entry were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the party under Section 112(a) of the Act. Hence this appeal.