The petitioner had imported a defibrillator claiming concessional rate of duty under notification 21/02 Cus. Dated 01.03.2002. Under the said notification, life saving medical equipment could be imported at the concessional rate of duty of 5% adv. in lieu of the normal rate of 15% adv. subject to production of a certificate from the Director General of Health Service, to the effect that the goods imported are “life saving medical equipment”. It is the case of the petitioner that for an earlier consignment imported by him, initially, the 2nd respondent, who was to issue the certificate necessary for claiming the exemption, did not grant the necessary certificate and this led the petitioner to approach this Court for issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to issue the certificate in question. It is stated that, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the 2nd respondent issued the necessary certificate for claiming exemption in respect of that consignment. The cause of action for the present writ petition, however, is a subsequent import of a defibrillator equipment, that was effected by the petitioner under cover of bill of entry dated 25.01.2008. It is pointed out by the petitioner that, as in the past, when the 2nd respondent was approached for the issuance of the certificate required for the purposes of claiming the exemption, no action was forthcoming from the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue the certificate.
2. It would appear that, after the admission of the writ petition, by way of an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to clear the consignment on payment of the concessional rate of duty as envisaged in the exemption notification, and subject to the production of a bond undertaking to pay the differential duty if the certificate from the 2nd respondent was not obtained, within a stipulated time. The consignment has since been cleared on that basis through customs.
3. I have heard Sri.Anil S.Raj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Tojan J.Vathikulam, the learned Standing counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I take note of the submission by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had issued the necessary certificate and on this basis the bond that was furnished before the respondents while clearing the consignment has been closed by granting the exemption claimed by the petitioner. In the light of this submission by counsel for the petitioner, which is not disputed by counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is closed as infructuous A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns