The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR VS JAN'S BUILDERS, PESHAWAR
2019 P T D (Trib.) 1266
[Customs Appellate Tribunal]
Before Syed Sardar Hussain Shah, Member (Judicial)
The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR
Versus
Messrs JAN'S BUILDERS, PESHAWAR
Appeals Nos. Cus. 44, 40, 41, 42 and 43/PB of 2017, decided on 27/11/2018.
(a) Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950)---
---S. 3---Import Policy Order, 2016, Paras. 15, 9(1), Appendix-E, Para. 3(1) & Appendix-I---Import Policy Order, 2013, Paras. 4, 9(ii)(v), Appendix H & Appendix B, Part II Sr. No. 27 [since amended]---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32, 16 & 156(1)(9), (14) & (90)---Import of second hand vehicle by construction company---Conditions of import---Used Mobile Clinic---Procedural requirements---Pre-shipment inspection---Amendment in Import Policy Order, 2013---Effect---Mis-declaration---Scope---Examination report transpired that vehicle in question was Model 1997---Show-cause notice was issued wherein allegations levelled against importer were that it could not import a vehicle which was more that 5 years old; that it could not import Mobile Clinic and that it misclassified the PCT Code by using Code No. 8705.9000 instead of 8702.9090---Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) vacated the show-cause notice and released the vehicle unconditionally---Validity---Para 4 of Import Policy Order, 2013 provided that amendments made in Import Policy Order were not applicable to such imports where bill of lading or letter of credit was opened prior to the amendment---Import Policy Order, 2016 was promulgated on 18.04.2016 which restricted the import of vehicle which was more than 5 years old---Letter of credit was established by the importer on 20.10.2015 and the vehicle was imported under said letter of credit, hence the amendments brought through Import Policy Order, 2016 did not hit the importer---Serial No. 27 of Part II of Appendix B of Import Policy Order, 2013 did not restrict or impose any condition on import of Mobile Clinic by a construction company---Use of word "etc" in Para. 9(ii)(v) of Import Policy Order, 2013 indicated that construction company was entitled to import additional unspecified items in a series---Import of Mobile Clinic was classified in Serial No. 27 of Part II of Appendix B of Import Policy Order, 2013 and PCT Code No. 8705.9000---Only condition mentioned in Said Serial No. 27 was inspection/certificate from internationally recognized inspection agencies specialized in the field---Imported vehicle was inspected by pre-shipment inspection company which certified the vehicle as Mobile Clinic---Appeal against importer was dismissed.
Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi v. Pakistan State Oil, Karachi 2011 SCMR 1279 = 2011 PTD 2220 and Messrs Baig Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan 2015 PTD 181 ref.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S.25---"Declaration"---Connotation---Declaration referred to the nature, description and value of goods so that the assessing officer couldapplyappropriatetariffratesforassessmentandcharging.
Vithoba Syamna v. Union of India AIR 1957 Bom. 321 fol.
(c) Words and phrases---
----Claim---Meaning---Claim means a demand for something due to or demanded as a right.
(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S. 32---Mis-declaration---In order to attract S.32, it must be established that a person who alleged to have made any statement in a document, submitted to the Customs Authorities, must be false to his knowledge, and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Collector of Customs PLD 1959 SC 364 fol.
(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S. 180---Show-cause notice---Case of the department could not go beyond the scope of the show cause notice.
The Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Rahim Din 1987 SCMR 1840 ref.
Muhammad Zahid, Supdtt/D.R. for Appellants.
Aamir Bilal for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th November, 2018.
JUDGMENT
SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).---These five (05) Appeals have been filed by the Collector of Customs, M.C.C, Peshawar, against the Order-in-Original No.621283 of 2017, dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad, Camp Office, Custom House, Peshawar, whereby he released the vehicle/Toyota Coaster unconditionally to the respondents. Similar question of law and facts are involved in these Appeals Nos. Cus-40, 41, 42, 43 and 44/PB/2017 therefore, are proposed to be decided through this single judgment.
2.Brief facts leading to this appeal as per Customs version are that,theimporterM/s.Jan'sBuilders,Peshawar(Construction Company)electronicallyfiledGoodsDeclaration(GD)bearing No.PCSI-HC-950-03-10-2016 and declared the imported item as used Mobile Clinic, invoice value as UD$ 2800/- under HS Code 8705.9000, the importer sought clearance of the same under Section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 by determining the liability of duties and taxes at his own. In order to check as to whether the item in question is importable in used condition and whether the duty/taxes have been correctly worked out, the GD was selected for scrutiny in terms of Section 80 of Customs Act, 1969. Perusal of the case in the light of Examination Report revealed that importer has mis-declared description of the item being used Mobile Clinic instead of old and used Toyota Coaster besides non-declaring the items at S.Nos.2 to 6 of the GD.
3.The examination report indicates the vehicle being Toyota Coaster Model 1997, Chassis No.JT743BB5008000484, whereas the Importing Construction Company has mis-declared the same as Mobile Clinic. The Toyota website also shows the vehicle as 20 seater Toyota Coaster. The vehicle/Coaster older than 5 years is not importable in terms of paragraph 3(1) of Appendix-E to the Import Policy Order, 2016 nor can a construction company import Mobile Clinic as it does not fall within the ambit of construction machinery importable by the construction companies. According to Appendix-I to the Import Policy Order by importing a vehicle older than 5 years in the garb of Mobile Clinic and misclassifying under HS Code 8705.9000 instead of correct classification under 8702.9090, the importer has violated section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. Paragraph-15 read with S.No.3(1) of theAppendix-E, Paragraph-9(1) and Appendix-I to the IPO, 2016. The above act on the part of the Importing Construction Company being an offencewithinthemeaningofSection32(1)(c)punishableunder Section156(1)(9)(14)(90)of theCustomsAct, 1969readwith Section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. Thus a Contravention case was framed and adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad as mentioned in Para-1 above. Hence the instant appeals.
6(sic). I heard Mr. Muhammad Zahid, Departmental Representative for the appellant and Mr. Aamir Bilal, learned Advocate for the respondents and have gone through the record of the Case.
7.According to the record, the importer Messrs Jans Builders, Construction Co, claims to have entered into a Letter of Credit (the L/C) dated 20.10.2015 for import of specialized vehicles. Number of specialized vehicles i-e, concrete transit mixers, prime movers and dump trucks were received after clearance and payment of leviable duty/taxes. Subsequently, the customs staff at Dryport, Peshawar, stopped the clearance of used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic for the reason that the examination report indicated the vehicle as, Toyota Coaster while the importer had mis-declared the same as mobile clinic. Responding to the examination report, the importer filed a complaint vide letter 21.11.2016, before the Collector of Customs, MCC, Peshawar against the examiner and the concerned staff for false and wrong report, but no response. However, according to the appellant/department the Toyota Coaster older than 05 years is not importable in terms of Paragraph 3(1) of Appendix-E of the Import Policy Order-2016.
8.It is an admitted position between the parties that under proviso to Para 4 of the Import Policy Order, 2013, (IPO, 2013) amendments vide IPO, 2016 shall not be applicable to such imports where the L/C was established prior to the issuance of amending order. Para-4 is reproduced as under:-
"4. Import of Goods.---Import of all goods is allowed from worldwide sources unless otherwise elsewhere specified to be banned, prohibited or restricted in this Order.
Provided that the amendments brought in this Order from time to time shall not be applicable to such imports where Bill of Lading (B/L) or Letter of Credit (L/C) were issued or established prior to the issuance of amending Order."
9.Perusal of the above provision, more particularly its proviso, makes exception to the application of IPO, 2016 in-respect of imports where Bill of Lading or Letters of Credit were issued or established prior to the issuance of amending order. Bill of Lading is not in contention. It is also admitted that the L/C was opened/established by the importer on 20.10.2015 and the impugned used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic was imported under the aforesaid L/C, hence the amendments brought through IPO, 2016 do not hit the imported vehicle.
10. The plea of the appellant's that the Toyodiy (a private website) showed the imported vehicle originally designed by the manufacturer, as 20 seats Toyota Coaster. The contention of the appellant that Used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic is required to qualify and meet the condition of OEM (Original equipment manufacturer) as laid down in IPO, 2016. No doubt the amendment of OEM (Original equipment manufacturer) has been introduced through IPO, 2016, did not applicable in cases where L/C was issued/established prior to the amendments; therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the said condition is not relevant in the instant appeal.
11.The Ministry of Commerce vide its OM dated 22.04.2016 and 05.05.2016 also clarified that there is no restriction on the modification of used/pre-owned machinery and equipment including vehicles and hence changes/variations made in the OEM is not restricted. In this report PSI companies has been listed in Appendix-H.
12.It is on the record that the importer is in possession of requisite Pre-shipment inspection report/certificate from Messrs Bureau VERITAS, an approved Pre-shipment inspection company listed in Appendix-H, whereby it has been certified that the said used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic is able to continue the service for at least five years. The aforesaid certificate of PSI Company, provided as follows:
"AVERAGE PRODUCTIVE LIFE:Upon the results of our visual inspection it is, without prejudice, our opinion that under normal circumstances, usage by skilled/ qualified operator/person, and provided that proper/satisfactory maintenance schedule will be carried out as recommended by manufacturer, the 1 Unit of Used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic Van. May be able to continue the service for at least five years. The Vehicle is compliant with Euro II Emission Standards. (No: WVT/ET/BV/169 Dated 04/08/2016)
INDOOR AIR QUALITY MONITORING:
FOR MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION Indoor air quality and reduction of Microbial spectrum for mobile clinic van was performed and found satisfactory referring to Lab Report No. WLR 16-6197 dated 16/0812016. Based upon the result and conclusion of the test report, the ambulance is free from microbial contamination at the time of survey"
13.In the light of the above, it is to be judged, whether on the basis of documents i-e, PSI Certificate issued by Company authorized, and by Federal Government in this behalf and the admitted facts relating to customs transactions conducted by the respondent, there was an act, which can be termed as an untrue statement in material particular.
14.As per contents of the Show-Cause Notice, the respondent has been charged for contravention of Section 32(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1969, who allegedly mis-declared the vehicle as Mobile Clinic. According to the Show-Cause Notice Toyota website showed the vehicle is 20 seater Toyota Coaster. The vehicle/Coaster older than 5 years is not importable in terms of paragraph 3(1) of Appendix-E to the Import Policy Order, 2016 nor can a construction company import Mobile Clinic as it does not fall within the ambit of construction machinery importable by construction companies. According to Appendix-I to the Import Policy Order, 2016, the importer imported vehicle older than 5 years, in the garb of Mobile Clinic, misclassifying under HS Code 8705.9000.
15. It would be appropriate to analyze the scheme and mechanism of the provisions, provided under Section 32(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1969, for ease of reference, relevant provisions of Section 32 of the Act, are reproduced below:
32.Untrue statement, error, etc. - If any person, in connection with any matter of customs,--
(a)makes or signs or causes to be made or signed, or delivers or causes to be delivered to an officer of customs may declaration, notice, certificate or other document whatsoever, or
(b)makes any statement in answer to any question put to him by an officer of customs which he is required by or under this Act to answer,
(c)submits any false statement or document electronically through automated clearance system regarding any matter of Customs,
16.In the light of the above provision of law, there is distinction between a "declaration" or "a statement in answer to any question put to him". Declaration means a communication by a person in relation to a business being conducted. The word "declaration" came to judicial scrutiny in the case of Vithoba Syamna v. Union of India reported as AIR 1957 Bom. 321. It was held in that case that the word "declaration" refers to the nature, description and value of goods so that assessing officer can apply appropriate tariff rates for assessment and charging. On the other hand the word "claim" means a demand for something due to, or demanded as of right.
17.The respondent claimed that the imported used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic, be assessed under PCT heading 8705.9000 attracting CD @30%, as mobile clinic. The respondent did not to be charged for false declaration in respect of nature, description and value of goods. In the case of Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1959 SC 364), the Supreme Court had held that in order to attract the penal provisions of Section 39 (now Section 32), it must be established that a person who alleged to have made any statement in a document, submitted to the customs authorities must be false to his knowledge, and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case it is not disputed here that the statement made in the customs documents regarding the nature and value of the goods imported were in any way wrong; rather that information was found correct and true.
18.The assumption of the customs that the respondent has violated Section 32(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 appears to be wrong. In fact, the charge against the respondent was wholly misconceived, as the actions of the respondents did not fall within the operative mechanism of Section 32 of the Act. Study of Sections 79 and 80 of the Act reveals that the importer has to file a bill of entry for release of the goods on which the assessing officer has to make an assessment. Any claim made by an importer is subject to scrutiny by the assessing officer who has been vested with unfettered powers to complete an assessment. A claim is a request subject to approval by a competent officer, and where a competent authority grants or rejects the claim, no charge of fraud or otherwise can be linked to the principal, whose duty is to submit relevant documents for processing of release. It appears that the officer who made the contravention case misunderstood the scheme, meaning and operative mechanism of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act.
19.Correct goods declaration was filed by the importer with correct description of goods; the importer neither filed deceptive, falls and fake declaration, notice, certificate, document or statement nor, did he mis-declare any material particular which could attract the mischief of Section 32. In a case reported in 2011 SCMR 1279 = 2011 PTD 2220 titled Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi v. Pakistan State Oil, Karachi, their lordships have observed as under:
"Scope, nature and interpretation of Section 32:- The language as employed in section 32 of the Customs Act is plain and simple and no scholarly, interpretation would be needed. The provisions as envisaged in section 32 of the Customs Act would be attractive in the following cases:-
(i)On filing deceptive, false and fake declaration notice, certificate, document or statement"
20. The controversy raised by the appellant in this appeal, stood resolved on the basis of clarifications issued by the MOC. The intention of the Federal Government was clear that the clearance is to be granted on such specialized vehicles, irrespective of the fact whether the subject items were built as such or adapted/fabricated to suit the end use. The clarifications issued by the MOC will still hold field, in cases for which L/C was issued/established prior to the promulgation of IPO, 2016 and do not be brushed aside in the manner as was dealt by the customs. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Sindh High Court reported as M/s. Baig Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan 2015 PTD 181.
21.In so far the question of mobile radiological or mobile clinic with anesthetic and surgical equipment is concerned. I am surprised to note that it was not the case of the appellant's department from the very beginning as no such allegation or objection was alleged in the show-cause notice and consequently no finding is available in the order-in-original as well. However, it seems that when the appellant's department filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order-in-original this objection was raised to the affect that HS Code 87.05 covers only "Mobile Radiological Units" and the explanatory notes on HS Code 87.05, at S. No. 13 defines the mobile clinics "Mobile clinics (medical or dental) with operating theatre, anaesthetic equipment and other surgical apparatus". At the outset, I have observed, that this issue is not required to be adjudicated at this stage as at the very first instance, neither there was any allegation in the show-cause notice nor any finding in order-in-original on this issue and it is a settled proposition that the case of the department cannot go beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. If any authority is needed one may refer to the case of The Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Rahim Din reported in 1987 SCMR 1840.
22.The plain reading of heading of the Appendix-B (Restricted Goods) of IPO, 2013 would show that "Import of the following items, shall be allowed only on meeting the conditions stipulated in column (4) below:--
The relevant column (4) has specified only one condition that "mobile clinics are importable subject to inspection/certification from PSI Companies listed in Appendix-H and prior NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority will however be required in case of import of X-Ray machines".
23.The Federal Government has the sole authority to regulate the import and export of goods and impose conditions thereon; as well as issue orders for carrying out the purpose of imports and exports (Control) Act, 1950 and make laws for the import and export of goods. However, it is evident that the provisions provided at Sr. No. 27 of Part-II of Appendix-B of the IPO, 2013 does not reveal any restriction or condition on import of mobile clinic by Construction Company, even the statutory sanction of word "etc" employed at Para 9(ii)(v) of the IPO, 2013 indicates that the Construction Company was entitled to import the additional unspecified items in a series. Whereas, the appellant department has not been able to show any provision of law which restrict the import of goods in question.
24. In fact the bone of contention between the customs and the importer is in respect of the import status of the mobile clinic in question. IPO-2016 was promulgated on 18.04.2016 restricted the import of goods in question. However, by opening Letter of Credit (LC) dated 20.10.2016 i.e. prior to the promulgation of IPO-2016 the importer had acquired a vested right for import of used mobile clinics as per proviso to Para-4 of IPO-2013 read with Para-9 (ii) (5) of the IPO. It is a matter of record that mobile clinics were freely importable without any condition under the IPO-2013 at Sr. No. 27 of Part-11 of Appendix-B.
25.Similarly, the plea of seizing agency that instant mobile clinic, do not meet the criteria of a genuine mobile clinic, OEM i.e. (original equipment manufacturers) also not relevant because the said condition was also promulgated vide IPO-2016, hence not applicable in cases wherelettersofcreditissuedorestablishedpriortoissuanceof IPO, 2016. Due weight was required to be given to Para-9 (ii) (5) of the IPO, 2013, which had details of vehicles mounted machinery and transport equipment importable by construction companies. In addition to the detail of specialized vehicles, the aforesaid Para had a statutory sanction of word etc. Despite of clearer than crystal from Para (9) (ii) (5) of the IPO-2013 that the key word "etc" employed in the said Para indicates additional unspecified specialized vehicles are also allowed to import by construction companies. The word "etc" mentioned in the aforesaid Para was a clear indication that the Ministry of Commerce not wanted the construction companies to be prevented from the import of any additional unspecified specialized vehicles in relation to their work or function.
26. Contrary to the facts/record on ground the examining officer has mentioned in his examination report that the importer has mis-declared the description of the item as used mobile clinic prima facie appeared to be imaginary and unfounded. As a matter of fact, it is an admitted position evident from the GD that the importer has actually declared used Toyota Coaster Mobile Clinic, therefore, on this score alone the contravention case lacks merit.
27. The main objection of the appellant (Collector of Customs, Peshawar) is that, the respondent (W/s Jan's Builders, Peshawar) imported Toyota Coaster, Model/Year 2004, Chassis No.JT743BB5008000143 of Japan origin, while filing the Goods Declaration (GD) bearing No. PCSI-HC-950-03-10-2016 mis-declared the imported item as "Used Mobile Clinic". Referred to Serial No.27 of Part-II of Appendix-B of the Import Policy Order, 2013 (IPO-2013), which clarifies the Second Hand or Used Mobile Clinic and their condition for the importable subject is reproduced as under:--
Serial No.27 of Part-II of Appendix-B of the IPO, 2013.
| S.No. | PCT Codes | Commodity Description | Conditions |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 27. | 8705.9000 | Second hand or used Mobil Clinics. | Importable subject to inspection/certification from internationally recognized inspection agencies specializing in this field inthe exporting countries to the effect that such equipment is free from bacteria and other material injurious to health and is compliant with EURO-II emission standards. Prior NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority will however be required in case of import of X-Ray machines. |
28. According to the above refered Serial No.27, the conditions are that the importable item shall be subject to inspection/certification from internationally recognized agencies and secondly if the Used Mobile Clinic has the facility of X-Ray Machine that shall be subject to prior NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA).
29. The imported vehicle has short of the facility of X-Ray Machine so the prior permission/NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulator/ Authority was not a requirement. As per Column No.3 of Serial No.27 second hand or used mobile clinics are importable and there is no restriction on importation of such mobile clinics. The provision of Serial No.27 at Column No.4 were amended vide IPO-2016 to the extent that the second hand or used Mobile Clinic shall not be importable older than five years and manufactured as such by the original equipment manufacturers, prior NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority will, however, be required in case of import of X-Ray machines. Serial No.27 of Part-II of Appendix-B of the ImportPolicyOrder,2016(IPO-2016) is reproduced as under:--
Serial No.27 of Part-II of Appendix-B of the IPO, 2016.
| S.No. | PCT Codes | Commodity Description | Conditions |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 27. | 8705.9000 | Second hand or used Mobil Clinics. | Importable subject to inspection/ certification from internationally recognized inspection agencies specializing in this field inthe exporting countries to the effect that such equipment is free from bacteria and other material injurious to health and (a) is compliant with EURO-II emission standards (b) not older than five years and (c) manufactured as such by the original equipment manufacturers. Prior NOC from Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority will however be required in case of import of X-Ray machines. |
30.What new in this Policy is that the imported Mobile Clinics shall not be older than 05 years and conditions of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). The respondents imported Used Mobile Clinics vide GD No.951, dated 03.10.2016 under the provision of IPO-2013, when the vehicles were reached to the Peshawar Dryport, examined by the Examiner at Dryport. The report is reproduced as under:-
GD No. 950, dated 03.10.2016, Container No. TCNU9222133 1x40ft KAPE, 0276-31082016 IGM No. 190. De-sealed the Container No. TCNU9222133 (1x40ft) and found used Toyota Coaster Model/year 2004, Chassis No. JT743BB5008000143 of Japan origin. Port of shipment from Jebel Ali (UAE), the documents found were packing list, Bill of Lading No. UFG/DXB/KHI/0097, dated 03.09.2016, Pre-Shipment inspection Report No. EDXB/0716/213/LCL/J1-VO4, dated 22.08.2016 and LC No. 1LCSF/MN/3469/15, dated 20.10.2015 (uploaded) attached with Gd No.950, dated 03.10.2016 and PICT Weighment Certificate No. 505321, dated 23.09.2016. Accessories :- (1) Water Dispensor, (2) Generator RY 4000 100% Copper, (3) Bed M/O Wood, (4) Kit, (5) Ultrasound, (6) Stool Chair the Bed at S.No. 3 is fitted the ramming items are lying inside the Coaster in loose condition. Assessment section isrequestedtocheckallaspectincludingimportabilityand othertechnicalaspectasperIPO,2016notifiedvideSRO. 345(I)/2016, dated 18.04.2016/IPR.
31.The above examination report reveals that the examiners, who made examination reports, reported that accessories are not fitted properly and he suggested that the Assessment Section is required to check all aspects including importability and other technical aspect as per IPO, 2016, notified vide SRO.345(I)/2016, dated 18.04.2016.
32.The Show-Cause Notice was served on the respondent for the violation of IPO, 2016. According to the contents of Show-Cause notice a construction company cannot import Mobile Clinic as it does not fall within the ambit of construction machinery importable by construction companies. According to Appendix-I to the Import Policy Order by importing a vehicle older than 5 years in the garb of Mobile Clinic and misclassifying under HS Code 8705.9000 instead of correct classification under HS Code 8702.9090.
33.GD filed by the respondent at Serial No.23 showing the date of Bill of Lading as 09.03.2016. The IPO, 2016, coming into force on 18.04.2016, which clearly show that the importer imported the goods under the IPO, 2013. The proviso to Para-04 of the IPO, 2013 reflects that the Bill of Lading (B/L) or Letters of Credit (L/C) were issued or established prior to the issuance of amending Order protected under the proviso to Para-4 of IPO-2013.
34.The allegations against the importer in the Show-Cause are that the importer shall not import the vehicle 05 year older under the IPO, 2016 and secondly the construction company shall not import Mobile Clinics. Referred to Para-27 supra of the IPO, 2013, does not imposed such restriction on the imports, the third allegation in the Show-Cause notice has misclassification of HC Code 8705.9000 instead of 8702.9090. As misclassification and classification for the import of such goods is classified in Serial No.27 Part-II of Appendix-B of the IPO, 2013, and PCT Code 8705.9000. The condition mentioned in Column No.4 of Serial number 27 is inspection/certification from internationally recognized inspection agencies specializing in this field. The respondents vehicle was inspected by PSI Company listed in Appendix-H and certified the goods as Mobile Clinics.
35.The objection raised by the Department Representative of the appellants that the examiner reported that the vehicle being a Coaster, butwhateverfurtherstatedbytheexaminerisnotinthemindof D.R. that it has all accessories which are required for the Mobile Clinics.
36.Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. The orders dated 05.01.2017 of the learned Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) is affirmed. These appeals stands disposed of accordingly.
SA/111/Tax(Trib.)Order accordingly.