Gwalior Hospital and Educational Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants imported medical equipment vide bill of entry no.109356, dated 28-8-99. the medical equipments were old and valued at rs. 5,92,500/-. the import in question was held to be unauthorised because the importer was required to produce appropriate import licence and required a valid importer-exporter certificate. the original authority viz. the joint commissioner ordered confiscation of the equipment and imposed redemption fine of rs.1,50,000/- and also imposed a penalty of rs. 50,000/- under section 112(a) of the customs act. the commissioner (appeals) dismissed their appeal. hence the appeal before the tribunal.3. the ld. counsel for the appellant pleaded that the medical equipment in question conform to the "capital goods" as defined in para 3.10 of the exim policy 1997-2002. it was also pleaded that import of second-hand capital goods which are not more than 10 years old are freely permissible in terms of para 5.4 of the said policy. it is pleaded that the department has not adduced any evidence to show that the said equipments were more than 10 years old. the ld. dr counters this submission by saying that, the import in the instant case is governed by the policy which was existing up to 31 march, 2000. the import thereunder was permissible only on surrendering special import licence (sil) equivalent to 5 times the cif value of the imported capital goods. therefore, in view of the said exim policy provision, the importers were required to produce an appropriate import licence to cover the said importation. having not done so, the appellants are liable to fine and penalty as held in the impugned orders.3. the ld. counsel after examining the provisions of the exim policy as applicable up to 31-3-2000 fairly concedes this position. therefore, his only request was to take a lenient view and reduce the fine and penalty.4. i have considered the rival submissions- the unauthorised import without import licence is not in dispute. however, i note that during the period after 31-3-2000 importation of old medical equipment of not more than 10 years old is freely permissible. the importers are charitable hospital and the imports do not appear to have been made for commercial gains. on the contrary, it was made to render medical services and improve the healthcare facilities in the hospital. on these considerations, i hold that there is a case for showing leniency.accordingly, i reduce the redemption fine to rs. 5,000/- and set aside the entire penalty. the appeal is allowed in these terms.

Judgment:
1. The appellants imported medical equipment vide Bill of Entry No.109356, dated 28-8-99. The medical equipments were old and valued at Rs. 5,92,500/-. The import in question was held to be unauthorised because the importer was required to produce appropriate import licence and required a valid Importer-Exporter Certificate. The original authority viz. the Joint Commissioner ordered confiscation of the equipment and imposed redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal. Hence the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the medical equipment in question conform to the "capital goods" as defined in Para 3.10 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. It was also pleaded that import of second-hand capital goods which are not more than 10 years old are freely permissible in terms of Para 5.4 of the said Policy. It is pleaded that the Department has not adduced any evidence to show that the said equipments were more than 10 years old. The ld. DR counters this submission by saying that, the import in the instant case is governed by the policy which was existing up to 31 March, 2000. The import thereunder was permissible only on surrendering Special Import Licence (SIL) equivalent to 5 times the CIF value of the imported capital goods. Therefore, in view of the said EXIM Policy provision, the importers were required to produce an appropriate import licence to cover the said importation. Having not done so, the appellants are liable to fine and penalty as held in the impugned orders.

3. The ld. Counsel after examining the provisions of the EXIM Policy as applicable up to 31-3-2000 fairly concedes this position. Therefore, his only request was to take a lenient view and reduce the fine and penalty.

4. I have considered the rival submissions- The unauthorised import without import licence is not in dispute. However, I note that during the period after 31-3-2000 importation of old medical equipment of not more than 10 years old is freely permissible. The importers are charitable hospital and the imports do not appear to have been made for commercial gains. On the contrary, it was made to render medical services and improve the healthcare facilities in the hospital. On these considerations, I hold that there is a case for showing leniency.

Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 5,000/- and set aside the entire penalty. The appeal is allowed in these terms.