Exemption for orthopaedic instruments turns on plain language and factual proof of specialised medical use

An exemption entry covering both instruments and implants was construed according to its plain language, so the view that only implantable goods could qualify was rejected. Eligibility nevertheless depended on proving that the goods were in fact orthopaedic instruments for severely physically handicapped patients or for joint replacement and spinal procedures. Because the product literature on record was insufficient to establish that specialised use, the matter required fresh consideration with an opportunity to produce expert evidence, including affidavits from orthopaedic surgeons or hospitals. The exemption claim was therefore left open pending reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01/03/2002 covered orthopaedic instruments such as depth gauges, impactors and hammers, and whether the matter required remand for production of expert evidence on their use for severely physically handicapped patients or joint replacement and spinal procedures.

Analysis: The entry in the notification expressly covered both instruments and implants, so the contention that the instruments themselves had to be implanted was not supported by the language of the exemption. At the same time, eligibility depended on whether the goods were in fact instruments for severely physically handicapped patients or for joint replacement or spinal use. The product literature and write-up placed on record were insufficient to conclusively establish that factual requirement. The Tribunal therefore held that expert opinion, including affidavits of orthopaedic surgeons or hospitals rendering such services, was necessary before the claim for exemption could be finally decided.

Conclusion: The exclusionary argument that only implantable goods could qualify was rejected, but the exemption claim was not finally accepted and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration with an opportunity to adduce expert evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the exemption issue remained open pending fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption entry covering both instruments and implants must be construed according to its plain language, and where factual eligibility depends on specialised medical use, expert evidence may be required before the claim can be decided.

---