TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (4) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Licence but also the particular item, that is, the Angel brand catheters are not subject to payment of any duty. It was further the case of the petitioners that the bill of entry had been submitted by the petitioners with the Customs Authorities in the month of June, 1985. Till 27th March, 1985 apart from refusing to release the said goods, the Customs authorities had not taken any steps whatsoever nor initiated any proceedings against the petitioners for violation of any of the provisions of the Customs law. Mr. Mitter craved reference to the General Exemption No. 11/90 under Item 32 thereof, suction catheters are exempted from payment of any duties. Mr. Mitter further contended that although the bill of entry had been submitted by his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proprietors of M/s. Medimex India had filed a suit against various parties including M/s. Pradip Traders for various reliefs including a prayer for order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including Pradip Traders, from infringing the artistic features of 'Angel' and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including Pradip Traders, in any way from printing, publishing or infringing copyright in respect of the said product. There it had been stated that the plaintiff in the said suit had been exporting from Japan medical and surgical apparatus and instruments including Foley Baloon Catheters in India since the year 1968 and those items were being regularly sold by the plaintiff therein in India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip Traders to the effect that even after getting the goods so released from the defendant No. 6, the said Pradip Traders shall not market it and/or dispose of or sell the goods so released. 4. Mr. Mitter further craved reference to various other documents in respect of other parties, namely, bill of entry given in the name of V.K. International and submitted that for the same 'Angel' brand of catheters the goods have been imported by the said party and the Customs authorities have released the said goods to the importer concerned. Under the circumstances there could be no ground for the Customs authorities in not releasing the said goods in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Mitter further contended that the officer concerned, Mr. Singh, had k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the petitioners were guilty of suppression of material facts and they have deliberately given the wrong description of the goods to avoid payment of duty on the goods so imported. Further, the Customs authorities were of the view that inasmuch as the description of goods nave been given in the said bill of entry misleading the Customs authorities, they were entitled to confiscate the goods apart from imposing the duty and/or penalty in respect of importation of the said goods. The learned lawyer on behalf of the Customs authorities submitted that under Item No. 90.17 /18 the goods imported by the petitioners fall under the heading Medical and Surgical Instruments importation whereof enables the Customs authorities to impose 60% duty on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the suction catheter, the petitioners gave a wrong description in the bill of entry dated 14th of June, 1985. Hence, the goods imported by the petitioners are not entitled to be released duty free. They are assessable under the Heading 90.17/18 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and notification dated 7th of October, 1977 under the Heading 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act at the rate of 40% + 25% Auxiliary and Countervailing duty at the rate of 12%. The entries made on the reverse of the bill of entry indicated that the goods were foley baloon catheter. The petitioner's attempt to get benefit by giving mis-description of the goods, so imported as Suction Catheter. The respondents contended that on 17th of October, 1985 for the first time ....