BHURJIS N. KHURSEDJI AND CO. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
LAWS(CE)-1991-10-41
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 01,1991

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K. Kapoor, Member (J) - (1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this case is whether 'Clark Biocampatible Haemoperfusion Cartridges'could be deemed as covered by Notification No. 208/81 and the O.G.L. in Appendix 6(36), List 2, Item 29 of the I.T.C. Policy for 1990 -93 as accessories of Haemodialysers.
(2.) THE appellants filed Bill of Entry No. A -4193 dated 16 -7 -1990 for the clearance of 25 pieces 'Clark Biocampatible Haemoperfusion Cartridges' valued at Rs. 97,371/ - and claimed the assessment of the goods as parts of Haemodialysers at nil duty under Notification No. 208/81 and under OGL, Appendix 6(36), List 2, Item 29 of the ITC Policy for 1990 -93. However, in the impugned order dated 14 -11 -1990 the Additional Collector of Customs, held that goods could not be considered either spares or accessories of Haemodialysers covered by Sr. No. 8 of Notification No. 208/81 and OGL Appendix 6, List 2, Sr. No. 29 of AM 1990 -93, Import Policy. The main reason given by the Additional Collector for his findings that the imported cartridges could not be deemed as accessories of Haemodialysers was that according to the manufacturers 'Clark Biocampatible Haemoperfusion Cartridges' being capable of removing compounds of larger size from the blood with greater speed and safety were different from Haemodialysers. In this regard he observed that Haemoperfusion and Haemodialyser were mentioned separately in the dictionary and even though both perform the same function, according to the manufacturers catalogue they are to be taken a different instruments. He also stated that in the certificate dated 11 -9 -1990 issued by Dr. V.N. Panse of Bombay Hospital it had not been categorically stated that the cartridges in question were accessories of Haemodialysers.
(3.) ON behalf of the appellants the learned Consultant Shri A.R. Sunder Rajan referred to the instruction manual for the use of 'Clark Biocampatible Haemoperfusion System' and the copy of an article titled "An experience with Biocampatible Haemoperfusion a Pediatric overdose by Jayme -Johnson R.N. and Betsy Mokinney" and contended that the imported cartridges are nothing but filteration accessories used for efficient filteration of compounds larger in size that those which can be removed by conventional Haemodialyser. In this regard he also placed reliance on the certificates of various hospitals filed by the appellants wherein well known specialists had certified that the imported cartridges were accessories of Haemodialysers. He added that the adjudicating authority had rejected without any basis or authentic documentary evidence the certificates issued by eminent experts in the medical field. On behalf of the Revenue the learned SDR Shri S.K. Roy reiterated the points made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.