ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. These 3 (three) appeals filed against the Order-in-Original No. 217/2001-CAU, dated 12-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Madras.
2. DRI Chennai on the basis of specific information conducted investigation into the import of goods declared as “Dental X-ray Machines 70 KV” by the appellants No. (1) and (2) through Chennai Port. The allegation against the appellants is that they were misusing the provisions of Customs Notification Nos. 20/99 and 16/2000 by importing the goods and mis-declaring them as “Dental X-ray Machines 70 KV” in order to avail the exemption wrongly. No. doubt, Dental X-ray Machines are covered by the exemption Notification. However, parts of the machine can be imported only by a manufacturer after executing bond for fulfilment of end use condition to the effect that the parts have been used in the manufacture of machines. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods imported are only parts of Dental X-ray Machine and not the machine itself. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty on both the appellants. The appellant No. 3, Dr. Subhaschandra Shetty, Managing Director of M/s. Confident Dental Equipment, has been penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods imported were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and redemption fines were imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved over the order of the Commissioner, the appellants have come before this Tribunal.
3. Shri Rajesh Chandra Kumar, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Raja Ram, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
4. Heard the learned JDR who reiterated the findings of the Commissioner.
5. The learned Advocate produced the catalogue containing the photograph and the technical data of the equipment imported. The catalogue describes the item in the following manner –
“NORMATIVE CONFORMITY:
Dental X-ray system is in conformity with European norms 550011 -EN 60601-1,2, is an apparatus of class IEC 601-1-1988 shown on label with symbol
The apparatus is homologated in Germany – Belgium – Austria – England – Hungery – Israel – Russia.”
The learned Advocate has also given the technical data concerning the said equipment. He has also shown a detailed drawing of the Dental X-ray unit. It was explained that the item imported is not a part of Dental X-ray Machine, and in fact, it is a machine itself. The equipment imported would be used as such or it can be further assembled to render them as wall mounted or mobile X-ray equipment depending on a specific requirement. This later activity of assembly is taken up by the first appellant, M/s. Confident Dental Equipment Ltd., Bangalore. The appellants sell the equipments as such to all those customers who require them for installation and use as basic Dental X-ray machine. To those customers who require further modification on the basic imported X-ray equipment necessary attachments, additional assembly, etc. the appellants carry out the same in their manufacturing unit at Bangalore. Further it was contended that the investigating agency could have verified all these facts before jumping to a conclusion. No technical opinion from experts in the field was obtained to prove that the submission of the appellants was wrong.
6. We have gone through the rival submissions. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the item imported is Dental X-ray Head which is to be fixed to a stand and to be connected to the controller/timer for the purpose of usage by the dentist and therefore what is imported is not a Dental X-ray Machine. He does not have any other basis to arrive at the finding that the unit imported is not a machine. The Commissioner’s logic is amusing to say the least. Take the case of an imported refrigerator. For safe use, it may have to be placed on a platform and a voltage regulator may have to be connected to it. In view of the above, can we say that the item imported ceases to be a refrigerator? Moreover, the investigating agency has not conducted thorough investigations by consulting experts and also the buyers of the equipment to prove that the submission of the appellants is wrong. After going through the catalogue and also an explanation of the appellants, it is clear that what is imported is a Dental X-ray Machine. The write-up in the catalogue describes the goods as “Dental X-Ray System. Just because for using the machine, there are different types of clamps depending upon how it is used, we cannot come to the conclusion that the item imported is a part of Dental X-ray Machine. The Order-in-Original has no merit as such. In view of the above findings, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.