MIOT HOSPITALS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rabu Manohar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents 1 and 3. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the second respondent. Mr. V. Sundareswaran, Learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the fourth respondent. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner imported true beam radiotherapy system under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy. Under the said Scheme, the petitioner applied to the third respondent for an authorization for import of various capital goods including the unit of high energy linear accelerator true beam radiotherapy system, which is stated to be used for the treatment of cancer. The third respondent issued the EPCG authorization dated 19-5-2016 for several equipment. The third respondent fixed the export obligation as USD 8,224,093.96 (equivalent to INR 55,47,15,138.00), which is six times the duty saved amount of Rs. 92,452,523.00. In terms of the said authorization, the petitioner was required to fulfill the export obligation within six years from the date of issue of the authorization by providing service to foreign patients. The average level of export, which the petitioner was required to maintain, was also mentioned. On the basis of the authorization, the petitioner imported six equipment during June 2016.

(3.) The fourth respondent initiated investigation into the import of true beam radiotherapy system on the ground that the equipment were wrongly classified. The fourth respondent was of the view that the impugned goods ought to have been classified under Tariff Item 9022 14 90 instead of Tariff Item 9022 90 30 adopted by the petitioner. Therefore, summons were issued on various dates and the petitioner appeared to have co-operated with the investigation done by the fourth respondent. Further, the petitioner, vide letter dated 14-3-2018, addressed to the fourth respondent stating the nature of the imported goods and also stating that they had no mala fide intention to claim a particular classification so as to evade payment of any Customs duty, as they had opted to clear the goods under the EPCG Scheme thereby undertaking export obligation of six times the duty saved. The petitioner further submitted that in case duty was exempted under the said Scheme and in case the Department wishes to assess the same under different Chapter Tariff Head having higher rate of duty, the same should be debited in the EPCG Authorization, as they also have a credit balance of INR 3 Crores under the said Authorization.