2013 (11) TMI 1399 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Imported Goods Classification

M/s. Sheth Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs (Sea Import), Chennai

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case concerning the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act for ... Denial of benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus - Classification under Heading 3005 9090 and 8414 5920 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Assessee claimed the goods are thawer equipment for blood warming and eligible for exemption from duty under Sl. No. 363 A & B - Held that:- Sl. No. 36 of the Table appended to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. granted concessional rate of duty on the goods namely medical equipments (excluding Foley Balloon Catheters) and other goods specified in List 37. Sl. No. 54 of List 37 of the said Table provides ‘Thawer Equipment for Blood Warming’ - exemption is extended to the Thawer equipment is used for the action of making or becoming warm of the blood - The certificate placed also certified that it is used for convective warming therapy. In our considered view, the Thawer equipment for blood warming is distinct and separate from the present imported goods namely blanket contained blowers for warming of the body of the patient. Therefore, the benefit of the exemption cannot be extended - Decided against assessee. Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for exemption eligibility under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.Interpretation of the term 'Thawer Equipment for Blood Warming' under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.Analysis:The case involved the classification of imported goods, including blankets and blowers, for exemption eligibility under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The appellants claimed the goods were thawer equipment for blood warming and thus eligible for duty exemption. The original authority classified the goods under specific headings of the Customs Tariff Act, denying the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.The appellant argued that the equipment blew hot air to warm patients' blood post-operation, citing dictionary definitions and product literature. The appellant emphasized the use of the blanket with a blower for warming blood circulation after a patient's operation. The appellant presented a certificate from a hospital supporting the claim that the goods were used for blood warming.The respondent reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that thaw equipment is typically used for melting frozen substances, including in blood banks. The respondent contended that the imported goods did not fit the definition of thawer equipment for blood warming.Upon review, the Tribunal examined the relevant notification and dictionary definitions. The Tribunal noted that the exemption under the notification applied to thawer equipment for blood warming. The Tribunal analyzed the product literature provided, highlighting the use of the blanket and blower for convective warming therapy post-operation. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods, primarily used for warming the body, did not qualify as thawer equipment for blood warming as intended under the notification.Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the distinction between the imported goods and the specific category of thawer equipment for blood warming eligible for exemption under the notification.