1998(06)LCX0055

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, MADRAS

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)

BECTON DICKINSON

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Order No. 1174/98, dated 16-6-1998 in Appeal No. C/3/98

Advocated By : Shri T.R.S. Mani, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri Victor Thyagaraj, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 192/97 dated 10-11-1997 passed by Commissioner of Customs wherein the goods viz. “Destruclip” were classified under sub-heading 8205.59 of Customs Tariff Act as Hand tools. The imported goods (without cover of ITC licence) were confiscated and Redemption Fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- was offered. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. The assessable value of the goods (5000 pieces) was Rs. 1,25,4516/- (sic).

2. Briefly, the product is specifically designed to destroy used disposable syringes and needles thereof to prevent misuse through unauthorised recycling, thereby preventing spread of highly contagious diseases like AIDS, etc. Appellants claimed it classifiable under 9018.90 as medical equipment on the following grounds :

(a) main users are hospitals/clinics/doctors/Nursing homes,

(b) the product clips out syringes of various sizes as well as their needles, totally ruling out possibility of reuse, thus preventing infection;

(c) when sterilising equipment (autclove) which only boils is treated as medical equipment, this should also be similarly treated;

(d) it cannot clip/cut/destroy anything else other than syringes and needles;

(e) ITC (HSN) classifies even hand tools under 90.18; and

(f) even as per Rule 3(c) of Interpretative rules the goods should be classified under latter heading 9018.90

3. Heard ld. Consultant for appellants Shri T.R.S. Mani. He reiterated above grounds and submitted that whereas hand tools are normally held in the hand, this was a box which had to be placed on the table, rather than be held in the hand because of its design. Secondly, he stressed that unlike a hand-tool which could be of more universal use, this product was only usable to destroy syringe and needles.

4. Heard ld. SDR Shri R. Victor Thyagaraj. He reiterated the grounds of the impugned order-in-original and argued that since cutting tools were classifiable under Chapter 82, therefore the item had been correctly classified.

5. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and the records of the case. We have also inspected the sample of the product, when its functioning was demonstrated to us. We find that the product is specially designed for uses as follows :

(a) its design is totally dedicated to destroy by clipping the plastic body of the syringe and the steel needles, one each at a time;

(b) the 2 orifices are having respective diameters only to accept these and nothing else can be cut;

(c) the contaminated cut ends are automatically falling into a receptacle so that the user need not touch them for risk of infection, and when the chamber is full, it can be emptied at periodic intervals;

(d) that the box (housing) containing the cutting devices and receptacles is a rectangular cube, in which these are two orifices - a bigger one for inserting tip of syringe and a very small one for inserting the needle;

(e) that both these get cut at a predetermined point, after they are inserted, (and not at any point of user’s choice).

(f) that the cutting is activated by a lever mechanism; and that

(g) of necessity, the box has to be kept on a table (plane surface) as while one hand holds the syringe/needle, the other hand manipulates the lever for cutting them.

6. The facts are therefore clear :

(a) This is not a multi-purpose or general use hand tool; instead it is a dedicated machine;

(b) The cutting cannot be done at a point chosen by the user;

(c) The box has to be normally kept on a plane surface while being used and not held in the hand; and

(d) there is a receptacle for the cut portion, to avoid infection to the user.

7. We find that applying these facts to the CTA, it is difficult to treat it as a hand-tool due to reasons at para 6(a) to (d) above. We note that being a specific end-use machine/appliance, it can only be used to destroy syringes and needles (medical equipment). Therefore, as against a general use hand-tool, which cuts many items at any desired point and normally does not have a receptacle, this is a specific appliance for use of clipping such medical equipment to prevent infection. It is a cardinal rule in matters of classification that the specific overrides the generic.

8. We also find that because of above features, classification also under Chapter 90 cannot be ruled out, even if we conclude that the department’s claim under Chapter 82 cannot be totally ruled out. Then, at best, we come to a position where the item is classifiable under both Chapter 82 to (sic) Chapter 90 and, therefore, as per Rule 3(c) of Interpretative Rules, the latter is to be applied.

9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude that the product “Destruclip” is a medical appliance and shall be classifiable under 9018.90 of CTA. We therefore set aside the impugned order-in-original and the appeal succeeds with consequential relief.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (103) ELT 177 (Tribunal)