2025 (10) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nging the order passed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the Appellant, though this is a full fledged Appeal, the impugned order dated 2nd January 2025 gives rise to the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Glucometers are correctly classifiable under the Heading 9027 and not under Heading 9018 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, given that the very same issue on merits has been decided by the Tribunal in Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2016 (331) E.L.T. 317] passed by the Tribunal Mumbai and in Ascen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 13.09.2024 for advance ruling before Respondent No. 3 under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962, for examination and classification of the glucometers imported by it. The case of the Respondents has been accepted in the impugned order dated 02.01.2025, and it has been held that glucometers are classifiable under Heading 9018. 7. Mr. Sridharan, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that devices falling under Heading 9018 must necessarily be goods which, in the vast majority of cases, are used only in professional practice (i.e. by doctors, surgeons, dentists, etc.), either to make a diagnosis, to prevent or treat an illness or to operate, etc. The glucometers being imported by Appellant are mostly used by individuals at the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ports of glucometers of the Appellant are suffering basic customs duty at the rate of 5% and are hence suffering a higher rate of duty when compared to similar/identical goods imported by the Appellant's competitors. It is submitted that this is placing the Appellant's goods at a disadvantaged position in the market, causing considerable loss of business. He, therefore, pressed for interim relief. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Chandrashekhar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, supports the order of Respondent No. 3 and contends that no interference is called for. Further, it is submitted that irrespective of who uses the glucometers, i.e. either the individual or the professional, the same is classifiable under Heading 9018 as ....