1989 (9) TMI 261 - AT - Customs

Confiscation upheld for misdescribed Haemometers, violating Import Policy

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of Haemometers imported as Blood Cell Separators under Open General Licence, citing a lack of evidence supporting ... Confiscation - Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation Issues:1. Classification of imported goods as Blood Cell Separators under Open General Licence.2. Interpretation of the Import Policy regarding the import of life-saving equipment.3. Consideration of earlier import clearance in the current case.4. Justification of confiscation and redemption fine imposed.Classification of imported goods as Blood Cell Separators under Open General Licence:The appeal concerns the import of Haemometers described as Blood Cell Separators under Open General Licence. The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 1,29,007/- for importation under O.G.L., citing a lack of a valid import license under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appellant argued that the goods were known as Blood Cell Separators in trade parlance, even though the manufacturer's catalog did not specify them as such. The appellant's advocate emphasized that the haemoglobin content of blood samples was measured using the imported Haemometers. However, the authorities found no evidence to support the goods' classification as Blood Cell Separators, as no actual separation of blood cells occurred in the unit.Interpretation of the Import Policy regarding the import of life-saving equipment:The Tribunal analyzed whether Haemometers could be considered Blood Cell Separators, as per the Import Policy AM 1985-88, which allowed the import of life-saving equipment under O.G.L. The Tribunal noted that the Haemometers did not function as Blood Cell Separators, and the product literature did not support this classification. The Tribunal criticized the appellant for misdescribing the goods to mislead authorities, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the availability of modern medical technology while conserving foreign exchange resources. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions to be a flagrant disregard of the Import Policy's description, leading to the rightful confiscation of the goods.Consideration of earlier import clearance in the current case:The appellant cited a previous import clearance of similar goods as Blood Cell Separators under O.G.L. as a basis for allowing the current import. However, the authorities were reviewing the earlier import clearance. The Tribunal highlighted that the earlier clearance did not justify the current import, especially considering the lack of evidence supporting the goods' classification as Blood Cell Separators.Justification of confiscation and redemption fine imposed:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods and the redemption fine, noting that the appellant failed to provide evidence to challenge the fine's amount. Despite the earlier import clearance, the Tribunal emphasized that such clearance did not mitigate the flagrant violation of misdescribing the goods. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the confiscation and fine imposed by the Collector of Customs.---