ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram
1. Appellant herein filed a Bill of Entry dated 8.2.99 for clearance of goods declared to be OV-100 Caller ID against invoice issued by M/s. Onvaco International Ltd. Taiwan. The value of the goods declared was Us$ 7.5 per piece FOB. Goods were found to bear the Name “CENLUB” without indicating the country of manufacture. It therefore appeared that the goods were prohibited in terms of Notification 1/64-Cus dated 18.1.64 and hence liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant also appeared to be liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. There was also a proposal to load the value to US$ 9 per piece CIF on the basis of contemporary import of similar goods. Vide letter dated 11.2.99. appellant stated that they had asked the manufacturer to incorporate their logo for the purpose of identification. They also requested for personal hearing and after granting hearing the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner) confiscated the goods under section 111(d) and (m) with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.1,50,000. She also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000 on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, Learned Advocate and Shri P.K. Jain, Learned SDR.
3. The provisions of Notification 1/64-Cus are as under
“(v) goods made or produced beyond the limits of India, and having applied thereto any name or trade-mark being-or purporting to be, the name or trade-mark of any person who is a manufacturer, dealer or trader in India unless-
(a) the name of trade mark is, as to every application thereof accompanied by a definite indication of the goods having ben made or produced in a place beyond the limits of India, and
(b) the country in which that place is situated is indicated in letters as large and conspicuous as any letter in the name or trademark in the English language.”
Appellants accept that the name and address of the manufacturer of imported goods was not affixed to the goods However, they plead that t he clear indication in the invoice and Bill of Entry that the country of origin is China amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement of the notification. We are not able to bring ourselves to agree with this submission .The language of the notification is very clear-name of country of origin must be indicated on the goods themselves. Therefore we agree with the authorities below that the import of the goods in question is prohibited. The plea that the value of the goods has been correctly declared and the value cannot be loaded is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the loading was not contested by the appellants before the adjudicating authority.The plea that the order of the Additional Commissioner is violative of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the appellants also has no force since they were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the Additional Commissioner and they did not object to the non-issue of show cause notice.
4. In the light of the above, we uphold the impugned order. However, having regard to the value of the goods, viz. Rs.1.94 Lakhs approximately, we reduce the fine to Rs.50,000 and the penalty to Rs.25,000.
5. The appeal is thus partly allowed.