2014 (6) TMI 815

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty under sub-heading no.3005 9040 as applicable to bandages. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant imported these goods over more than three years and there is no suppression of facts and, therefore, demand of duty for the extended period is not sustainable. He fairly submits that the demand for normal period would be about Rs.3 lakhs. He further submits that the impugned goods are fracture appliances used only for support and stopping of movement of fractured bones. He submits that the synthetic casting tapes is not impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances and, therefore, it would not come under Chapter 30. He relied upon ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture, which was unearthed by the investigating agency. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that Heading No.3005 would cover the bandages, impregnated or coated pharmaceutical substances. On the other hand, the Heading No.9021 as claimed by the applicant is applicable for the 'orthopedic appliances'. HSN Explanatory Notes of Heading No.30.05, as reproduced below:-     "Wadding and gauze for dressings (usually of absorbent cotton) and bandages etc., not impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances, are also classified in this heading, provided they are exclusively intended (i.e., because of the labels affixed or special folding) for sale directly without re-packing, to users (pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or veterinary purposes. The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, following the ratio thereof, we hold that classification done by the Department under Customs Tariff heading 3005.90 is correct. The confiscation of goods is also upheld having regard to the fact that the appellants did not have a valid import licence which was required for import of goods falling under heading 3005. The redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs requires no interference. Having regard to the value of the goods (approximately Rs. 37 lakhs), the penalty of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the Adjudicating authority is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case." Thus, prima facie....