Casting tape classification under customs law upheld as bandage-like article; confiscation and fine sustained, penalty reduced.

Polyester casting tape used for fracture immobilisation and as a substitute for plaster of paris was treated as an article akin to a bandage under heading 3005.90, not as an orthopaedic appliance under heading 9021.19. On that classification, import without a valid licence justified confiscation, and the redemption fine was sustained as appropriate to the goods' value. The penalty was found excessive on the facts and was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of penalty reduction, while classification, confiscation and redemption fine were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether polyester casting tape was classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 3005.90 or heading 9021.19; (ii) whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and to what extent the penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether polyester casting tape was classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 3005.90 or heading 9021.19

Analysis: The product was found to be used for immobilising fractures and to act as a substitute for plaster of paris. It hardened on exposure to moisture and provided support and ventilation, but it remained a tape for orthopaedic use rather than an appliance. The reasoning followed the earlier view that similar casting tapes were not devices, instruments or appliances under heading 90.21 and were more akin to bandages and similar articles under heading 30.05.

Conclusion: Classification under heading 3005.90 was upheld and the importer's claim under heading 9021.19 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and to what extent the penalty required reduction

Analysis: Since the goods were held to fall under heading 3005.90, import without a valid licence justified confiscation. The redemption fine was considered appropriate in light of the value of the goods. The penalty, however, was considered excessive on the facts and circumstances and was reduced.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine were sustained, while the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the classification, confiscation and redemption fine were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A casting tape used for fracture immobilisation and functioning as a substitute for plaster of paris is classifiable as an article akin to a bandage under heading 30.05 rather than as an orthopaedic appliance under heading 90.21.

---