ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides. M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd., Ramkrishna Mandir Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 (Importers) filed a Bill of Entry No. 105566 dated 28.1.2000 for clearance of goods declared as 401040 pcs. of White Display Boxes (Glue Stick) of Korea origin with declared CIF value of Rs. 24,42,865/-. The goods were exempted on second check basis and representative sealed sample was called for inspection by the Group. On inspection of the said sample, it was noticed that the said glue sticks contained the following printed text on the body of the goods:
Pidilite Industries Ltd.
Regent Chambers, Mumbai-21.
The goods bore the following remarks:
From the makers of the FEVICOL brand industries.
The import of the said goods is prohibited as per M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 1/64-Cus dated 18.1.1964 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Accordingly, on due enquiry, the commissioner of Customs, confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The importers were given an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine Rs. 12,40,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Penalty of Rs. 2,40,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence this appeal.
3. The main contentions of the appellant are as follows:
(1) The goods imported by them under their own Trade Mark with specific consent do not come under the restrictions for the purpose of Sr. No. (n), (o) and (v).
(2) In view of the globalization of trade and opening up of the Indian economy, Indian companies selling branded goods can compete with foreign brands only if Indian companies can source such goods under their own brand from any country of their choice. In such a case, the country of origin may change from time to time and it would be practically impossible to comply with the provision of this notification in such a situation.
4. In the case of Rochi Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2004 (166) ELT 203 (Tri-Del) : 2004 (114) ECR 194 (T), violation of condition No. (v) of Notification No. 1/64-Cus came up for consideration before the Bench. It observed in para 5 as follows:
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Condition No. (v) of Notification No. 1/64-Cus stipulated that the benefit of notification would not be available if the imported goods bore any name or trade mark of any person who is a manufacture, dealer or trader in India unless:
(i) the name or trade mark had to be accompanied by a definite indication of the goods having made or produce outside India, and
(ii)the country of manufacture is indicated in large and conspicuous letter.
This condition No. (v) has been deleted by Notification No. 61/2000-Cus. We, therefore, hold that the amendment effected by Notification No. 61/2000 in Notification No. 1/64-Cus has to be given effect retrospectively.
5. As the case on hand squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 27.8.2004.)