Exemption eligibility for imported medical equipment failed because the claimant could not prove the notification conditions were met.

Imported lifesaving equipment claimed under Notification No. 208/1981-Cus. was held not to satisfy Sl. Nos. 19, 42 or 44 because the description in the bills of entry and invoices did not establish the required conditions. The record did not show that the infusion sets, cannulae and tubing were proved to be capable of long-term use under Sl. No. 19; Sl. No. 42 applied only to cannulae and not to complete infusion assemblies; and Sl. No. 44, relating to ancillaries for blood component therapy for cancer treatment, was not supported by the invoice descriptions. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving exemption eligibility, so the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, described as lifesaving equipment consisting of infusion solution administration sets and intravenous cannulae and tubing for long-term use, were eligible for exemption under Sl. Nos. 19, 42 or 44 of Part B of Notification No. 208/1981-Cus. dated 22.9.1981.

Analysis: The goods as described in the bills of entry and invoices were examined against the three exemption entries. Sl. No. 19 covered intravenous cannulae and tubing for long-term use, but the record did not show that the imported goods were proved to be capable of long-term use. Sl. No. 42 applied to cannulae alone and not to infusion sets with tubing and other apparatus. Sl. No. 44 covered ancillaries for blood component therapy required for treatment of cancer, which was not established by the description in the invoices. The claimant failed to adduce material to show that the goods satisfied the conditions of the exemption notification, and the burden of proving eligibility remained on the claimant.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not covered by Sl. Nos. 19, 42 or 44 of the notification, and the exemption claim failed.

---