GUJARAT RESEARCH & MEDICAL Vs. C.C. (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by The Gujarat Research and Medical Institute, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 -Cus dated 1.3.1988 is available to them.

(2.) Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants imported one equipment Pentax Duodeno Fiberscope and claimed the exemption under Notification No. 64/88 -Cus; that the Director General, Health Services (DGHS) after getting verified their eligibility to the exemption through State level delegatee had granted them a Customs duty Exemption Certificate; that on production of the same they cleared the equipment at nil rate of duty on executing a bond; that the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned order has denied the benefit of the notification and confirmed the demand of import duty besides confiscating the equipment with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 90,000; that a penalty of Rs. 45,000 has also been imposed on the ground that they had not produced "Not manufactured in India" certificate in respect of the equipment, not produced its installation certificate and have not fulfiled the conditions of the notification regarding providing free treatment for at least 40% of the outdoor patients and reserving 10% of hospital beds for those patients with monthly income of less than Rs. 500 per month. The learned Consultant, further, submitted that the original copy of certificate of not manufactured in India was misplaced during transit and they had applied to DGTD for issuing a duplicate/fresh certificate; that the Ministry of Industry informed them that DGTD has been closed down and the production of certificate had since been dispensed with by Notification No. 93/94 -Cus; that however, on their insistence the Ministry of Industry attested one photocopy of the certificate which they had produced before the Customs and the Customs found it acceptable; that as such there is no default on this aspect. Regarding installation certificate the learned Consultant mentioned that this condition is applicable only to the category 4 hospital which is in the process of being established; that since they are category 2 hospital being already established and functioning there is no such requirement to produce the installation certificate. He relied upon the decision in the case of Gautam Diagnostic Centre v. C. C., Mumbai, 2001 (133) ELT 812.

(3.) The learned Consultant also submitted that the certificates from Gujarat Health Directorate confirmed that they had fulfilled both the requirements of providing free treatment to at least 40% of all their outdoor patients and providing free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to the families with an income of less than Rs. 500 per month and keeping for this purpose at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients; that the remarks "condition fulfilled partially" in the certificate has been clarified by the State Health Directorate by mentioning that these remarks are with reference to the actual number of very poor indoor patients treated being less than 10%, that there is no condition in the Notification that the actual number of very poor patients should also be not less than 10%.