2006(06)LCX0010

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. II]

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)

New Look Cosmetic Laser Centre

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai

Order No. A/456/2006-WZB/C-II(C.S.T.B.), dated 8-6-2006 in Appeal No. C/875/2000

Advocated By -

S/Shri V.S. Nankani with Naresh Thackar, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. -

Heard both sides. The issue involved is classification of "RUBY STAR SURGICAL LASER" claimed by the importer to be falling under Heading 90.18 of Customs Tariff and eligible to benefit of Notification No. 20/90-Cus. Sr. No. 271 as well as Sr. No. 74 of list 21 there-under or whether it falls for classification under Heading 8510.30 without the benefit of Notification No. 20/99 as held by the department vide the orders impugned.


2. The entity, as per the Catalogue produced, indicates it to be "A Third Generation System, the "Ruby Star Laser" accommodates the latest in hair removal techniques. The advanced technology and years of clinical experience assure clinicians and their patients of the most reliable hair removal, system avail able today "it is designed to provide the most effective, reliable and theorography documented method of treating unwanted hair on a patient. The Catalogue just informs" The optical Q-switch mode allows the clinician to expand the use of "Ruby Star" in the treatment of Benign pigments lesions and removal of amactur and professional tattoos." Removal of Benign Pigmented Lessions on the skin would indicate a Medical or Surgical use. The reading indicates a use by" Clinician on patients" for Cosmetic Removal of hair or skin pigment lesions and other treatments now well accepted as Surgical Procedures in Cosmetic Surgery. It is not meant as a substitute for use by any person or tonsorial artist in a hair dressing saloon; as a razor or other hair removal creams etc. The hair is removed, not by cutting or any other mechanical means/method of uprooting etc. but as, seen from the Catalogue, The Ruby Star laser creates a wave length of light that is highly absorbed by melanin present in human hair shaft. The heat generated when the metamin in the hair shaft absorbs the ruby light results in damage to the follicle and its ability to re-grow the hair i.e. it operates by destroying the germ cells that generate new hair. This phenomenon, combined with larger spot sizes, which result in more effective penetration of Laser energy allows the Ruby 'Star to most efficiently reduce the amount of hair in the treated area. Thus it not only eliminates the hair in a different fashion than the conventional methods of razor sheaving or physical/chemical uprooting, it also results and reduces the amount of hair in a given area.


3. Entity that would be covered under Chapter 8510.30, on reading the entry, which is :-

would indicate coverage of and be of such be much appliances which have self contained electric motors. This is confirmed by reading the HSN notes under this heading which reads:-

"This heading also covers electro-mechanical hair removing appliances with self-contained electric motor; these appliances, which grip the hair and pluck it out at the root may operate with either a micro-roller, or a metal spiral which rotates around its own axis, or a guard a depilatory head and a set of depilatory wheels".

Thus the entry would cover only appliances which result in mechanical uprooting or shearing and not an entity, as in the present case, which by heating & damaging by vaporization of hair root by laser heat and which has also not been demonstrated to have an electric motor or working through rollers, metal, blades to depilate uproot the hair by electro-mechanical force. Classification of an entity, that is laser based, which can function on other skin benign lesions cannot be made under 851030 in view of HSN notes there under. Classification under 90.18, considering the scope of the entry, its use found in Cosmetic Surgery & removal of skin lesions would be more appropriate as nothing contrary to the literature submitted on medical surgical use of lesers by the appellants is shown to us. Benefit of Notification 20/90 as claimed as surgical appliance that the entity is, cannot be denied.

4. We would therefore not upheld the findings of classification as arrived by the lower authority and set aside that order.


5. Direct the classification under 90.18 with the benefit of the notification, as claimed.

6. Appeal is allowed in above terms.


(Pronounced in Court on 8-6-2006)

Equivalent 2006 (200) ELT 0336 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Equivalent 2006 (076) RLT 0103 (CESTAT-Mum.)