Customs exemption for an endoscopic camera failed because technical authority confirmed it was not part of the exempt medical set.

Customs exemption for an imported endoscopic camera depended on whether the item formed part of the exempted PCN operating set under the relevant notifications. The technical clarification of the competent health authority, given after consultation with experts, stated that the camera was used for teaching purposes and was not part of the PCN instrument. That clarification was treated as controlling for exemption purposes, and the customs benefit was denied because the notification could not be extended on sympathy or equitable grounds against the technical finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported endoscopic camera was entitled to exemption as part of a PCN operating set under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22-9-1981 and Notification No. 138/88-Cus. dated 18-4-1988.

Analysis: The exemption covered an operating set for percutaneous nephrostomy and related procedures. The decisive question was whether the endoscopic camera formed part of that operating set. The Directorate General of Health Services had repeatedly clarified, after consultation with concerned experts, that the endoscopic camera was used for teaching purposes and was not part of the PCN instrument. The Tribunal treated that technical clarification as controlling for the exemption issue and held that the customs authorities could not disregard it and extend the notification benefit on sympathy or other equitable considerations.

Conclusion: The endoscopic camera was not held to be covered by the exemption notifications, and the claim for benefit failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent technical authority has categorically clarified that an imported item is not part of the exempted medical set, customs exemption cannot be granted by ignoring that clarification.

---