Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appearance:

Shri M.L. Grover, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent. CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member (Technical) Date of decision: 09/09/2010 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: P.G. Chacko:
The appellant have imported three medical equipments viz: (i) Pediatric Cystoscope Urethroscope, (ii) Ultrasonic Litho-trite System and(iii) Flexible Fibero-ptic Urethroscope and claimed benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01/03/1988 in the relevant Bill of Entry which was filed on 25/07/1990. At the time of import, they had also produced Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) from the Director-General of Health Services (DGHS). On the basis of the said certificate, the goods were assessed and accordingly allowed to be cleared without payment of duty. Later on, the department noted that the DGHS had subsequently withdrawn the CDEC after investigations which revealed that the importer had violated the conditions of the above Notification. Therefore, the department seized the above goods on 08/07/2002. After completing the investigations, they issued a show-cause notice on 07/01/2003 proposing: (a) to confiscate the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act; (b) to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act; and (c) to recover duty of Rs. 4,34,419/- by denying the benefit of the above Notification on the ground of breach of conditions attached thereto. These proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty against the appellant, ordered confiscation of the goods but allowed redemption against payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. The appeal filed by the party against the decision, of the adjudicating authority did not succeed and hence the present appeal.