2017 (8) TMI 1397 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on medical equipment classification dispute

Fresenius Medical Care India Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import),

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the classification of imported medical equipment, specifically dialyzers, under the ... Classification of imported goods - artificial kidneys into India - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dt. 1.3.2002 as amended by N/N. 66/2004 dt. 09.07.2004 - whether classified under CTH 90189031 or under CTH 84212900 - the Department clarified that purifier dialyzers are to be classified under CTH 84212900 and thereby denied the benefit of notification - Held that:- The issue stands decided in the case of SANWAR AGARWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & OTHERS [2016 (4) TMI 621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the natural classification of dialysers should be under CTH 90189031 - benefit of notification cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Classification of imported medical equipment under CTH, benefit under customs duty exemption notification, applicability of Circular No.19/2013-Cus for classification of purifier dialyzers.Upon analyzing the judgment, the case involved the classification of imported medical equipment, specifically dialyzers for Hemodialysis, under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH). The appellants had been importing dialyzers into India since 2006, classifying them under CTH 90189031, and claiming benefits under various customs duty exemption notifications. However, a circular issued on 09.05.2013 (Circular No.19/2013-Cus) clarified that purifier dialyzers should be classified under CTH 84212900, leading to the denial of the notification benefits. The appellant paid duty under protest, and after adjudication, the original authority confirmed the differential duty, classifying the goods under CTH 84212900, which led to the appeals.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel referred to a judgment by the Delhi Bench and decisions by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the High Court of Kerala, arguing that the issue was covered by these precedents. The appellant contended that the demand for duty was unsustainable based on these judgments. The respondent's representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the issue was indeed covered by the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for duty was unsustainable. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief as per the law. The operative part of the order was pronounced in court, concluding the matter in favor of the appellant.