Functional equivalence can preserve customs exemption for imported hospital equipment despite differences in nomenclature.

Imported hospital equipment and life-saving apparatus were treated as eligible for customs exemption where item-wise comparison showed functional equivalence with the goods described in the notifications. Literal differences in nomenclature did not defeat relief because the record showed the imported equipment, including accessories, matched the notified goods in essential character and use. On that basis, the lower appellate authority's grant of exemption was upheld and the department's objection based on wording differences was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported hospital equipment and life-saving apparatus were entitled to exemption under the relevant customs exemption notifications despite differences in description, and whether the lower appellate authority was justified in granting the benefit on the basis of functional equivalence.

Analysis: The goods were considered item-wise against the exemption notifications and the lower appellate authority had recorded categorical findings that, functionally, the imported equipments matched the descriptions in the notifications. The department's objections were based mainly on literal variation in nomenclature, but the record showed that the equipments were imported with accessories and were of the same functional character as the notified goods. In these circumstances, the tribunal found no reason to disturb the conclusion that the exemption conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: The exemption under the relevant notifications was available to the imported goods, and the department's challenge failed.

---