AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These writ petitions coming on for hearing on Fridays the third day of January 1997 and on this day upon perusing the petitions and affidavits
filed in support thereof and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid compraised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High
Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E. S. Govindan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and of Mr. K. Jayachandran,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, in both the petitions the Court made the following order :
In these two Writ petitions, the parties are common and the points involved are also one and the same hence, by consent of both the sides, these
writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.
In W.P. No. 4413 of 1987, the petitioner M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. represented by its partner one Kasthuri Ahuja has prayed for the
issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records ending with the order Air C. No. 998, dated 29-3-1986 of the Assistant Collector
of Customs (imports), Madras and quash the same and direct the Third respondent herein to refund the said sum of Rs. 10,488/- collected from
the petitioners.
Similarly, in W.P. No. 4414 of 1987, the same petitioner has made an identical prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records ending with the order No. Air C. 738, dated 24-2-1986 of the Assistant Collector of Customs (imports) made and quash the same
and direct the third respondent herein to refund the said sum of Rs. 21,993/- collected from the petitioners.
In support of these writ petitions, the partner Kasthuri Ahuja, has sworn to affidavits wherein he has stated in W.P. 4413/87 that the petitioners
imported one parcel of ''Balloon Catheters'' weighing 37 kgs. covered under Bill of Entry Rotation No. 534/86 shipped by Air 9 MMH, dated 13-
3-1984 from London to Madras, covered under Invoice No 55567, dated 5-3-1986 issued by M/s. Eschman, England, valued at Pounds 594.20
c.i.f. Madras, the total value in Indian Rupees being Rs. 9,802/-. Similarly the petitioner has stated in W.P. 4414/87 that they imported one parcel
of ''Balloon Catheters'' weighting 84 Kgs. covered under Bill of Entry Rotation No. 216/86 shipped by Air 9 MMH, dated 29-1-1986 from
London to Madras, covered under Invoice No. 55584, dated 22-1-1986 issued by M/s. Eschman, England, valued at Pounds 1384.63 c.i.f.
Madras, the total value in Indian Rupees being Rs. 24,329/-.
The petitioners state that they sought clearance of the above goods as OGL items under Appendix 6, List 2 - Item No. 31 of 1985-88 Policy
Book. They are also duty free vide Item 32 under Notification No. 208/81 on Suction Catheters, dated 22-9-1981 amended from time to time
under heading (B) Life Saving Equipments. The Customs Department refused to clear the goods stating that a decision of the Collector''s
conference held in June, 1984 which has classified that Folley Balloon Catheters are not suction catheters and are not eligible for benefit of
exemption Notification No 208/81. In order to avoid heavy demurrage and in view of the fact that the goods are life saving equipments liable to
deterioration, the petitioners cleared the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the Department on 29-3-1986.
The petitioners further stated that at the time of the above assessment, they were not aware of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench ''C'' bearing No. C/421/84, dated 29-6-1984 in Appeal No. CD(SB) A. No. 437/84-C
in the case of 1987 (30) ELT 493 which clearly held that imported Folley Balloon Catheters are covered by Heading 32 of the Notification No.
208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 and are entitled to complete exemption from Customs Duty and Additional Duty of Customs. The above decision
is followed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench ''B'' by its order Nos. 509 and 510/85, dated 17-6-
1985 reported in 1987 (27) ELT 706 .
On this ground, the present writ petitions, have been filed. I heard the learned Advocate Mr. E. S. Govindan on behalf of the petitioners and
Mr. K. Jayachandran, on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. E. S. Govindan submitted that the goods (Balloon Catheters) were entitled to complete exemption in
terms of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 and hence, the Assistant Collector of Customs had no jurisdiction to levy duty those
goods imported by the petitioners. He further pointed out that the petitioners have wrongly paid the tax under mistake of law and mistake of fact
and in order to avoid payment of heavy demurrage and in view of the fact that the goods are life saving equipments liable to deterioration, they
cleared the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the department. Hence the learned Advocate pleaded that this Court may be pleased to
quash the said assessment and to direct the respondent to refund of the amount collected by the third respondent Assistant Collector of Customs.
In this connection, he has invited my attention to a decision reported in 1991 (55) ELT 393 and placed reliance on the following Passage :
We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The goods imported
are brand Folley Balloon Catheters. We have also perused the import policy. The matter stands fully covered by the earlier judgment of the
Tribunal which was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Mansukhlal Chhaganlal Desai, Bombay Vs. Union of India, . We have also
considered the revised opinion of the DGHS. Para Nos. 6, 7 and 8 from the Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of 1987 (30) ELT 493 are
reproduced below :-
We have carefully considered the submissions before us. The letter dated 1-5-1984 from the Director General of Health Services signed by
Dr. G. H. Gidwani for the Director General of Health Services clearly states that the opinion that Folley Catheters are Suction Catheters is based
on the opinion of the Urologist in Delhi and Asstt. Dean, K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay. The Directorate has since reconsidered the issue in
consultation with Prof. Sarinder Man Singh, Head of the Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and the
Professor has confirmed that Folley Balloon Catheters could be based as Suction Catheters and would, therefore, come under the terms ''Suction
Catheters'' copies of the letters of the Asstt. Dean, K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay and the Head of Department of Urology, AIIMS have been
perused. In the letter dated 23-3-1984 to the Director General of Health Services, the Head of Deptt. of Urology, AIIMS has stated that Folley
Balloon Catheters come under the terms Suction Catheters and would qualify for exemption from Customs duty as life saving equipment. In his
letter dated 21-5-1981 to the Collector of Customs, AIR Cargo, Bombay. The Asstt. Dean, K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay has said that Folley
Catheters are Suction Catheters and are used for urine suction. In the light of these categorical certificates, we have no difficulty in coming to the
conclusion that the Collector''s finding that the subject goods were not Suction Catheters were clearly erroneous. His reliance on the Statement of
Shri P. R. Parekh cannot detract from the evidentiary value of the certificates issued by eminent men of medicine. At any rate, what Shri Parekh
had said in his statement was that Folley Balloon Catheters were different from Suction Catheters but the former was an improved version of
Suction Catheters. The Collection in his order says that the function of Suction Catheters is to remove unwanted fluids in the blood system. This
finding also stands negatived by the certificates produced. The book ''Medical Dictionary'' 21st edition, published by E. & S. Livingstone Limited,
at page 278 defines ''Catheter'' as ''A Hollow Cylinder of silver, India rubber, or other material designed to the passed the urethra into the bladder
to drain this viscus of urine in case of retention; a similar instrument used for passage through other canals"".
Based on the above discussions, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the goods imported were Suction Catheters and as such
eligible for clearance and as such eligible for clearance without licence in terms of Open General Licence contained in Appendix 10, List 2, Sl. No.
They are also eligible for duty exemption in terms of Customs Notifications 208/81, dated 22-9-1981 and 262/82, dated 30-11-1982 vide Sl.
No. 32 in the list of life saving equipments annexed to the notification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and direct
consequential relief to the appellants within 2 months from the date of communication of this Order"".
The above decision has been challenged before the Supreme Court of India by the Collector of Customs and the Supreme Court confirmed
the order of the Appellate Tribunal and observed as follows :-
The appellate Tribunal in its Order in question had held that ''Folley Balloon Catheter''s are ''Suction Catheters'' and exemption under Notification
No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 would be available. The Tribunal has also held that the goods in question are also permissible for import
under OGL.
The above decision has been followed by this Court in W.P. No. 7889 of 1986, decided on 16-12-1996 and this Court has allowed the said writ
petition. Holding that the issue has now been decided in favour of the petitioner in 1991 (55) ELT 393 which has been confirmed by the Supreme
Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The learned Advocate Mr. K. Jayachandran appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not dispute this proposition of law and very fairly
submitted that it is so. However, he submitted that the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged only the Bill of Entry and have not
produced the assessment orders and hence, on that score, the writ petitions could be dismissed. It will be too technical whether the petitioners
have challenged the assessment order or Bill of Entry, it makes little difference as long as the department has collected the said taxes. There is no
dispute that the department has collected the said tax. Hence, I overrule the objection and hold that the department could not have collected the
said tax since the said item was entitled for complete exemption in terms of the Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as Suction
Catheters.
Now as far as the prayer of the petitioners for refund is concerned, the learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that this is barred by
limitation in view of Section 27 of the Amended Customs Act and also the said Tax has not been paid under protest. However, the learned
Advocate for the petitioners cited a decision reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) (Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs) and
submitted that if really the payment of the duty is under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek redress to such alternative remedy as it may
advise. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on another decision reported in Union of India and others Vs. I.T.C. Limited, in support of the
above contention.
However, I am not going to consider and grant the prayer of refund here in these writ petitions. I direct the petitioners to file applications
before the Assistant Collector of Customs (Imports), Madras who is respondent 3 herein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and the Assistant Collector in turn should dispose of the applications in accordance with law as per the provisions of Section
27 of the Act within two months thereafter, after giving opportunities to the petitioners. These writ petitions are ordered as above. However, there
will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions.