LexM/S. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 10 S.C.R. 386 MIS. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (Civil Appeal No.2603 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962-ss. 111(m), 114A- Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Classification of goods as auto analysers or C photometers - Appellant filed Bill of Entry for clearance of goods classified as auto analysers under Entry 9030. 89 - Goods seized by custom authorities - Issuance of notice stating that the said goods were photometers and not auto 0 analysers - Demand of duty - Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Commissioner held that goods imported were auto analysers, thus, amounted to misdeclaration of description and that the goods were liable · for confiscation and penalty - No evasion of duty on the E imported goods, thus, no penalty uls. 114A - Tribunal set aside the order- Held: Without any analysis of whether the imported equipments were, in fact, auto analysers or were only photometers, the tribunal concluded that one can never come to a conclusion that a photometer is the same as an F auto analyzer - Commissioner had held that a photometer is a generic expression and auto analysers are photometers with software installed in them which could then perform various operations - Tribunal found this logic faulty but did not given any reason for disregarding the same - G Commissioner concluded that since the process of analysis is automatic, though mixing of samples may be done manually, yet since analysis has to be done automatically, an analyser would fall under the expression "auto analysers" for enzymes, drug levels and biochemical investigations - H Thus, the order of the tribunal is set aside and that of the 386 DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES v. COMMISSIONER OF 387 CUSTOMS Commissioner is restored. Tietz Text Book of Clinical Chemistry edited by Carl A Burtis and Edward R. Ashwood 2"d Edn - referred to. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. B 2603 of 2006. From the Judgment and Order No. 99 of 2006 dated 20.01.2006 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore in Appeal No. Cl c 130/2002. WITH Civil Appeal No. 4374 of2006. Aurav Agrawal, Vyom Shah, Manisha Singh, Vishal Gehrana, Abhijit Mitra, Ruby Singh Ahuja, B. Krishna Prasad D for the Appellant. YashankAdhyaru, Rupesh Kumar, Shirin Khajuria, Jitin Singhal, B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present case relates to appeals filed both by the assessee and by the revenue against the judgment dated 2ot11 January, 2006 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as F "CESTAT"). The appellant company had been importing various models of diagnostic equipment such as BTS 302, BTS 310, BTS 320 and BTS 370 manufactured and supplied Mis Bio Systems, Barcelona, Spi:iin. On 271h May, 1999, the appellant in its Bill of Entry filed at Hyderabad for clearance of G models of BTS 320 and BTS 310 classified the goods as "auto analysers" under Entry 9030.89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were seized by the custom authorities, being a total of 8 BTS 320 and 15 BTS 310 models, valued at Rs. 26,97,741.21. During the course of investigation, statements H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A of six persons were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. On 2"d November, 1999 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai issued a show cause notice . stating that the goods in question are "photometers" and not B c D E F "auto analysers". On this basis, the revenue demanded:- ( a) Duty of Rs.1,79, 11,499/- [as detailed inAnnexure 11 to the Notice] towards import of BTS 302, BTS 310, BTS 320 and BTS 370 from 1994 till 1999. (b} Confiscation of goods valued at Rs.3,31,55,908/- imported without payment of duty and sold (in the market) as auto analysers under Section 111(m} of the Customs Act, 1962. (c} Confiscation of goods valued at Rs.26,97,741/- imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4454 dt. 27-05-99 and seized by the officers of DRI on 8.6.99 under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (e) Penalty under Section 112(a)/112(b) of the Customs Acton Dr. Jayaram Chigurupati, SeniorVice President and in-charge of Diagnostic Division of the Appellant. 2. On 241h December, 1999, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.