LexM/S. ANDROMEDA FOUNDATION INDIA P. LTD. versus D.G.H.S. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 $.C.R. 74 ' ~ A M/S. ANDROMEDA FOUNDATION INDIA P. LTD. v. D.G.H.S. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3620 of 2008) B MAY 16, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] -< Customs Act, 1962_ - Notification dated 1.3.1988 and 10.8.1993 - Import of medical equipment availing conces- c sion in terms of exemption Notification - Authorities called upon importer to furnish specific details but it failed to do so - Withdrawal of exemption certificate - Propriety of - Held: Proper as the conduct of the importer was not satisfactory - Having imported medical equipment on concessional terms, D it was incumbent on importer to have scrupulously observed the condition of imports and follow guidelines designed to ~ ensure that equipment was properly utilized and furnish infor- mation required by authorities. Appeal - Representation filed by respondent before Au- E thorities - Pending decision of representation, respondent filed writ petition - Writ petition dismissed - In appeal, request for direction to authorities to decide the representation first- Held: Not tenable. F The appellant was established for the purpose of con- ducting diagnostic tests and treating patients with spe- t- cific Andrological problems. On 1st March 1988, a Notifi- cation was issued by the Government of India whereby medical equipment imported for specified purposes, was exempted from the payment of customs duty. Taking ad- G vantage of the aforesaid Notification, the appellant im- ported three machines. Respondent No.1 asked the ap- pellant to furnish some additional information, which was 'l" supplied but, Respondent No.1 was not satisfied, despite H 74 ANDROMEDA FOUNDATION INDIA P. LTD. v. D.G.H.S. 75 AND ORS. being called upon to furnish specific details time and A again, appellant did not do so. On 6th October 1997 the appellant was refused the installation certificate for the imported medical equipment. The appellant wrote to re- spondent No.1 that the required information had been sup- plied. On 9th December 1997 respondent No.1 replied that B the requisite information had not been furnished and in particular referred to the details of the use of the "Hand Held Recording Doppler" and the details of the free ser- vices which had to be given to the poorest individuals, and thus withdrew the Customs Duty Exemption Certifi- c cate which had been issued to the appellant. The appel- lant submitted a detailed Memorandum to respondent No.1 on 6th February 1998 but to no effect. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 9th De- cember 1997 and praying for direction to respondent No.1 0 to issue the Installation Certificate with respect to the im- ported equipment. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, the representation dated 6th E February 1998 had been filed by the appellant before the concerned respondent and the same has not yet been decided. The plea of the appellant that it would be proper to set aside the order of the High Court and to issue a direction that the representation be first decided, cannot F be accepted at this belated stage as the appellant had filed a writ petition seeking the courts' intervention in the mat- ter and having failed he cannot now claim a decision on the representation. 5.124 of the Customs Act has abso- lutely no applicability to the facts of the present case as G this provision deals with the confiscation of goods, which is not the case before this Court. On the contrary, appellant's the conduct has been most unsatisfactory, as despite being called upon to furnish specific details, time and again, it had not done so. The information furnished H 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A by the appellant on 20th July 1997 does not even remotely fulfill the requirement as per proforma that had been laid down in the Notification dated 10th August 1993. Having imported medical equipment on concessional terms, it was incumbent on the appellant to have scrupulously ob- 8 served the conditions of the import and to follow the guide- lines designed to ensure that the equipment was being properly utilized. [Paras 6,7] [80-C-H, 81-A] 2. The extract of the OPD register furnished by the appellant in its own format with regard to the provision of C free facilities to the poor, hides more than it reveals. [Para 8] [84-A] 3. It was observed in *M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.