TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c acid monohydrate („CAM) from a Chinese supplier since 2008. The imports have been allowed by the Commissioner of Customs, Respondent No.1, upon the Petitioner furnishing the requisite documents. The Petitioner sells CAM in the retail market and the invoices of the Petitioner contain the endorsement "not for medicinal use." The Petitioner holds a licence under Form 21-B and 20-B under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 („DCA) for sale or distribution by wholesale. The Petitioner states that CAM is a versatile industrial chemical which has several uses and in particular for cleaning industrial vessels, dissolving rust, water stains from glass etc. It is reiterated that CAM imported by the Petitioner is for non-medicinal uses. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment, certified that the CAM imported by it was only for non medicinal purposes. A certificate to this effect issued by its foreign supplier from China dated 25th May 2010 was also furnished. Thereafter, by a letter dated 10th August 2010 addressed to Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner pointed out that the CAM imported by it was for further sale to industrial users who were not manufacturers of pharma products. It was pointed out that the use of „BP-93 in the description of imported goods was merely for analytic reference. Respondent No. 2 was requested to issue an NOC for release of the goods. The Petitioners request for a personal hearing by a letter dated 10th August 2010 was not acceded to. By a letter dated 23rd August 2010, Resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21st October 2010. 7. At the hearing on 6th December 2010, the Petitioner pointed out that after the impugned decisions dated 23rd August 2010 and 20th September 2010, the Petitioners further consignments have been permitted to be cleared upon the Petitioner furnishing an affidavit stating that imported CAM would not be used for medicinal purposes. 8. In response to the order dated 6th December 2010 passed by this Court, Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 produced a copy of the undated communication received from the Drug Controller General (India) („DCGI) (Import & Registration Division) stating that imported goods were of pharma grade and, therefore, fell within the category of „Drugs as defined unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arwal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 first points out that in terms of a Circular dated 13th December 2005, imported drugs having a dual purpose for use as a raw material in the manufacture of other drugs, required an application to be made to CDSCO, Headquarter, where a case-to-case examination would be undertaken. After due scrutiny, permission to import dual purpose drugs would be granted. It is submitted that in this case, the Petitioner submitted an application after the import was made and, therefore, this was contrary to the procedure outlined in the Circular dated 13th December 2005. 12. Secondly, Mr. Agarwal submitted that a self certificate by the importer in terms of Rule 43 of the DCR may not be sufficient. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e imported CAM contained the suffix „BP it was of „pharma grade having pharmaceutical activity and therefore could not be permitted to be imported. The chart produced by the Petitioner at Annexure P-17, which is not disputed by the Respondents, shows that identical imports of CAM by other importers, with the description of the goods as „CAM BP-98 and „CAM BP-2003, have been permitted. There is merit in the contention of learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner that suffix „BP is merely an indication of the quality or grade of the imported goods. It is possible that even without the suffix „BP the imported CAM could be used for medicinal purposes. What is relevant for Rule 43 DCR is the certificate of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. It would be open to the Respondents to undertake a surprise check of the premises of the purchasers as disclosed by the Petitioner. If the Respondents find that such purchasers have sold the consignment to a manufacturer of drugs or a person who is likely to use such goods for medicinal purposes, the Respondents will proceed to take action in accordance with law. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the order dated 30th July 2010 and the consequent observation dated 2nd August 2010 of the Customs Department requiring the production by the Petitioner of an NOC from the DCGI. The decision communicated in the letter dated 23rd August 2010 from the DCGI to the Customs Department, and the orders dated 29th August 2010 ....