Customs exemption for medical video camera upheld where specified use was established despite possible alternative applications.

Interpretation of Notification No. 23/98-Customs turned on whether a CCD medical video camera fitted with sinoscopes satisfied the specified use requirement. The authorities found no material showing the imported camera was merely a general-purpose endoscopic device, and the notification did not contain restrictive words such as "only", "exclusively" or "entirely". On that basis, possible alternative applications of the camera did not by themselves defeat the exemption where the specified use was otherwise established. The exemption was therefore treated as available and the restrictive denial of benefit as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 23/98-Customs was available to the imported CCD medical video camera fitted with sinoscopes.

Analysis: The lower authorities did not dispute that the imported camera was to be fitted with a sinoscope. The Revenue did not place material to establish that the goods were a general-purpose endoscopic camera usable in various applications. The notification did not use restrictive words such as "only", "exclusively" or "entirely", and therefore the fact that the camera might have other possible applications did not by itself exclude the exemption. The reading of the relevant serial entries was also held not to support the Revenue's restrictive interpretation.

Conclusion: The exemption was admissible and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification does not employ restrictive expressions indicating exclusive use, the exemption cannot be denied merely because the imported item may have other possible applications, if the specified use is otherwise established.

---