Tribunal allows appeal, overturns confiscation and penalty. Duty-free importation rejected for defibrillator. No deliberate misdeclaration found.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed on the appellant. However, the appeal was rejected concerning duty-free importation under Notification 208/81 for the imported defibrillator with an ECG monitor, as the exclusion clause applied even if the excluded items were part of the defibrillator. The tribunal found no deliberate misdeclaration in the bill of entry, noting the correction made in the description.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the imported defibrillator with an ECG monitor qualifies for duty-free importation under the Open General Licence (OGL) entry.
2. Whether the imported goods are entitled to duty-free importation under Notification 208/81.
3. Whether there was deliberate misdeclaration in the bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a defibrillator with an ECG monitor, claiming it as medical equipment under the OGL entry. The department contended that the goods did not contain a cardiograph and thus were not covered by the OGL entry. The appellant argued that the ECG monitor is equivalent to a cardiograph based on medical definitions. The tribunal agreed that the monitor could be considered a cardioscope, making the goods eligible for OGL benefits.

2. Regarding the duty-free importation under Notification 208/81, the notification excluded specific items like ECG recorders, cardioscopes, and ECG monitors. The tribunal interpreted the exclusion clause to apply even if the excluded items were built into the defibrillator. It concluded that the intention of the notification was to allow only the essential components of the defibrillator along with specified accessories, denying the benefit of the exemption to the goods.

3. The department alleged deliberate misdeclaration in the bill of entry, as it separately listed the defibrillator and cardioscope. However, the tribunal noted that the word "with" was added between the descriptions, indicating a possible correction rather than separate declarations. It found no evidence of intentional misdeclaration and set aside the confiscation of goods on this ground.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed on the appellant. However, the appeal was otherwise rejected, affirming the denial of duty-free importation under Notification 208/81 for the imported goods.

---