Page 212 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

394 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
- Superficial and partial thickness wounds.
- Light to moderate draining wounds.
- Catheter site cover.
Though the said product has absorbent properties and protective properties, it is
submitted that the benefit is denied due to non-mention of the application for
ostomy purposes in the product; thus it can be seen that the first two products do
not have any skin barrier or absorbent properties and cannot definitely fall with-
in the entry claimed as “Skin Barrier Micropore Surgical Tapes” but are only porous
tapes; M/s. 3M, USA principals of the appellants described the products as Non-
Sterile Adhesive Tapes and not as Skin barriers as declared in the Form 40 for
obtaining the clearance for import; it was so certified by the Drug Controller
General of India (DCGI).
15. He submits that the certificates from DGHS submitted by the appel-
lant in support of their claim are certificates issued under Notification 208/81
and as lifesaving items and would have no relevance to the Notification 21/2002-
Cus., Sl. No. 363 A and the claim has to be considered only as per the current
notification; also, the alternative plea for eligibility under Sl. No. 365 of Notifica-
tion 21/2002 is without any basis as the requisite certification by DGHS under
the current Notification is not produced; the appellant has chosen not to press for
the issue of jurisdiction and has sought for the case to be decided based on merits
and as per the decision of the Chennai Bench.
16. On the contention raised that the SCN issued on 30-09-2011 for the
period October 2006 to February 2010 is beyond the normal time period, Learned
Authorised Representative submits that the goods have mostly been cleared un-
der the Self-Assessment procedure and as recorded by the adjudicating authority
(Paras 50 to 54 of the OIO), the extended period would be invokable; the said
demand is justified and the consequential proceedings of Confiscation, Redemp-
tion fines and penalties are liable to be upheld.
17. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The brief is-
sue involved in this case is as to whether Micropore, Transpore and Tegaderm
imported by the appellants are eligible for exemption contained in notification
No. 21/2002-Customs, dated 1-3-2002 as amended from time-to-time. The con-
tention of the appellants is that their products are rightfully eligible for the ex-
emption contained in the notification under the description “Skin Barriers Mi-
cropore Surgical Tapes”; otherwise also they are covered under Ostomy Products
(appliances) for managing Colostomy, Illcostomy, Ureterostomy, Illeal Conduit
Urostomy Stoma cases such as bags, belts, adhesives seals or discs or rolls adhe-
sive remover; alternatively they claimed that they are eligible for exemption as
per Sl. No. 365 which provides exemption to lifesaving equipment subject to the
condition that the importer at the time of import produces the certificate to the
effect that the imported goods are a lifesaving medical equipment; there is no
product which suits the description “Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes”
and that there should have been a comma after skin barriers. On per contra the
Department contends that there exists a product which suits the description
“Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes” and the notification should not be read
as per convenience.
18. For a proper appreciation of the issue in question, we find it is use-
ful to have a look at the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002. The relevant
headings of the notification are as follows :
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  212