TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices, New Delhi for verifying the veracity of the declared description as to whether the said catheters are cardiac catheters covered by Sl. No. 33 of list 37 read with Sl. No. 363(A) of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002. Statement of Shri K.S. Shetty, Partner of CHA was recorded, wherein he stated that 30 Bs/E have been filed for clearance of various types of Central Venous Catheters, Flotrac Sensors Venous Access, CVCs, Heparin Sets, SG Triple LUM monitoring Catheters, CVC with Oligon etc. by declaring the same as "Cardiac Catheters" in the bracket of expanded description and cleared under CTH No. 9018 39 20. Statement of Shri Vijay Kumar Chellani, Director of the respondents was also recorded that he did not know how the same were classified, that to the best of his knowledge and belief, the said catheters are cardiac catheters and are used in cardiac surgery and to other critically ill patient to monitor the homodynamic performance of heart. On being asked about whether the said catheters are defined as cardiac catheters by the manufacturer or the supplier as on today, he stated that there is no proof as on date, that to the best of his knowledge, the descriptions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner has decided the issue on the basis of trade parlance, but does not mention how it was found in trade parlance that they are understood as cardiac catheters. The contention is that as per the information retrieved from website, the importer has kept separate category of Central Venous Catheter and Cardiac Cannula. The contention is that the CHA in his statement has stated that the word cardiac in the brackets after the description were added on the instruction of the Director Shri Vijay Kumar Chellani which means that they were fully aware that these catheters do not qualify for the exemption. Therefore, Central Venous Catheter imported by the respondents are rightly classifiable under CTH 9018 39 30 and hence are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002. 4. The contention of the respondents is that they requested for cross-examination of the expert from DGHS who had given the certificate regarding Cardiac Catheters but they informed that the said officer did not respond. The contention is that the products in question are classified under CTH 9018 39 30 on the manufacturer/supplier's invoice since under the Customs Tariff of Puerto Rico, which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department's proceedings are mainly based on the DGHS letter dated 3-1-2007 vide which the Chief Medical Officer given the report as under: "I am directed to refer to your letter F. No. DRI/MZU/Enq-17/06/07/7195 dated 3-11-2006 seeking classification if following products are Cardiac Catheters covered by Sl. No. 33 of list 37 read with Sl. No. 363(A) of the table of list 37 of Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 or otherwise. Sl. No. Bill of Entry No. & Date Product Description Item No. 1. 732821 19-8-2006 Multi Med Central Venous Catheter M3716HE 2. 732821 19-8-2006 7F Vantex Central Venous Catheter M3716HS 3. 758619 13-9-2006 Presep CV Oximetry Catheter X3820HS 4. 758619 13-9-2006 SG Triple Lum Monitoring Catheter 114F7P 5. 742370 28-8-2006 Multi Med Central Venous Catheter M2716HE The matter was examined in this Directorate, GHS in consultation with subject experts who opined that of the five items listed above, only item at Sl. No. 4 i.e. SG Triple Lum Monitoring Catheter is covered under the entry at Sl. No. 33 of list 37 read with Sl. No. 363(A) of the table of Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002, which reads as under. 'Various types ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries, it is not right to blindly compare the classification adopted in the manufacturer's country with that of the importing country. The goods have to be examined on merits before being classified and I find that the heading 9018 39 20 specifically refer to 'cardiac catheters' only and if a specific heading is available for a product that has to be preferred against any general heading. As per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 597) it was stated "........When an article has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause". 5.4 We find that the ld. Commissioner in para 41 of his order recorded the descriptions/details of the disputed items as under:- "Multi Med Central Venous Catheter (S. Nos. l and 5 of Table at para 10 of the Show Cause Notice): The Multi Med Central Venous Catheter is indicated for use in patients requiring administration of solutions, blood sampling and central venous pressure monitoring. The catheter is....