(1.) Vide his impugned order, Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Kolkata, has confirmed duty of Rs. 65,06,775.00/ - under Section 17(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, apart from confiscating the C.T. Scanner and its spares imported by the appellants during the period 1989 to 1992 after availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 64/88 -Cus. However, he has given an option to the appellants to redeem the said goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/ - in terms of provisions of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/ - under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order has been passed on the findings that the appellant has not been able to fulfill the condition of free treatment of the poor patient to the extent of 40% as envisaged in the said Notification.
(2.) Shri S.K. Bagaria, Id. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant is Charitable Society duly registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The C.T. Scanner and its spares were imported by the appellants during the years 1989 to 1992 and assessments were originally provisional. However, the provisional assessments were subsequently finalised. After a prolonged use for a period of 7 years, as the said CT Scanner had outlived its utility and since technological advancements had also taken place in the meantime, bringing in the latest model which was highly sophisticated and advanced, the appellant decided to discard the said old CT Scanner and donate it to another hospital of a Charitable Society.
(3.) He submits that the proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that as they had failed to fulfill the condition of Notification 64/88 -Cus under which the goods were imported, the same are liable to confiscation and the appellants are liable to pay duty. He submits that though the continuous obligation placed under the said Notification was being fulfilled by them during all the relevant years but he fairly concedes on the point that the appellant is not in a position to substantiate its above stand. As such he restricts his arguments only on two grounds. First, submits the Id. Advocate that the appellant is liable to pay duty only when he chooses to redeem the same and not otherwise and subsequently, such duty which became payable by the appellants after redemption of the goods, is on the depreciated value of the Scanner and not on the initial full valuation of the same. He also submits that the redemption fine and penalty imposed upon the appellants be reduced in the facts and circumstances of the case.