MANSUKHLAL CHHAGANLAL DESAI BOMBAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two petitions, the question is whether Foley Balloon Catheters are suction catheters and are, therefore, covered by Serial No. 32 of a notification which grants total exemption from the customs duty. This question had arisen earlier and the matter was considered by the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the CEGAT", in P. R. Parekh v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Appeal No. CD (SS) A. No. 437/84-C) and by a judgment dated 29th of June 1984, the Tribunal held that Foley Balloon Catheters are covered by the expression "suction catheters" and are, therefore, eligible for duty exemption as per the notification referred to above. There are in fact two notifications. One is Notification No. 208/81 dated 22nd of September 1981 and another is Notification No. 265/82 dated 30th of November 1982. While so holding, the CEGAT took into account the opinion given by the Director General of Health Services. The opinions of other persons who could speak with some authority on the subject were also before the CEGAT when it passed the said order. This view of the CEGAT was followed by the Tribunal in another case between the same parties by an order passed on 17th of June, 1985.

(2.) HOWEVER, even after the CEGAT had expressed its opinion, the Assistant Collectors of customs in Bombay seen to have insisted on net treating the Foley Balloon Catheters as suction catheters. Hence, several parties came to this Court and orders have been passed requiring the assistant Collector to treat the Foley Balloon Catheters as being exempted.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Collector of Customs by his order No. S/10-49/88 (5b) dated 11th of March 1988 again took the view that the Foley Balloon Catheters were not suction catheters. He took this view because, according to him, after the decisions of the CEGAT referred to above, fresh material had come to his notice. In particular, he noticed that the Director General of Health services had revised his opinion. This view of the Collector of Customs was challenged in Writ petition No. 1108 of 1988. Bharucha, J. passed the following order on 20th of April 1988 while dismissing the said writ petition :-