Page 155 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] HSN SHIPPING PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 689

undertakes the work of purifying blood. It is, in a sense, a purifier. The input and
output to and from such equipment is a liquid; it is blood in the toxic form which
goes in and in a cleaner form that comes out. Yet, considering the other products
pertaining to the group of 8421 in Chapter 84 and the other products in the group
of 9018 in Chapter 90, it is obvious that the writ petitioner’s product has over-
whelming nexus with medical equipment and renal dialysis equipment and only
an incidental connection by reason of its use as a purifier of blood with other
classes of purifiers used in the industry.
9. In the circumstances, the approach of the Single Bench and the final
conclusion rendered in the impugned order that the writ petitioner’s product
had to be classified in Chapter 90, do not call for any interference. There does not
appear to be any error in the judgment and order impugned arriving at the con-
clusion that by the impugned instructions issued under Section 151A of the Act
of 1962, the very nature and efficacy of the writ petitioner’s product could not be
altered from that which is used in connection with renal dialysis to being a mere
purifier of liquids.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and the judgment and or-
der impugned dated April 7, 2016 stand affirmed.
11. APO No. 98 of 2018 is dismissed.
12. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Since the enhanced duty according to the classification under Chap-
ter 84 has been tendered by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities, the
respondent authorities should endeavour to refund the same within a period of
three months from date, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from April 7, 2016 till the date of payment.
14. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be sup-
plied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 689 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
HSN SHIPPING PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
W.P. Nos. 38433-38434 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 2 & 2 of 2015, decided on 3-1-2020
Customs Broker’s Licence - Revocation of - Time limit for issuing
show cause notice mandatory - Notice issued after 90 days of offence report -
To be quashed - Consequently order to suspend Customs Broker’s License and
its subsequent extension also liable to be quashed - Regulation 20 of Customs
Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. [2016 (332) E.L.T. 300 (Mad.), 2017 (350)
E.L.T. 59 (Mad.), C.M.A. No. 730 of 2016, decided on 13-10-2017 by Madras High
Court relied on]. [paras 7, 8]
Appeal allowed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  155