MRP compliance treated as substantive, with a technical marking lapse insufficient for immediate recovery in stay proceedings.

Where footwear was admittedly below the prescribed MRP limit, the MRP condition was treated as substantively complied with, and the alleged non-embossing of MRP on the goods was viewed as a technical lapse, especially since the MRP was stated to appear on the outer package and there was no clear admission or investigation showing non-compliance in earlier clearances. On that prima facie basis, immediate recovery of the duty demand and penalties was not justified, and waiver of the entire demand and penalties was granted in the stay proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of the duty demand and penalties should be granted in a stay proceeding where the footwear was admittedly below the prescribed MRP limit and the alleged non-embossing of MRP was treated as a technical lapse.

Analysis: The condition relating to MRP was found to be substantively satisfied, as the Commissioner himself recorded that the footwear value was admittedly below the prescribed limit. The alleged non-embossing of MRP was treated as a technical defect, particularly when the MRP was stated to be written on the outer package and there was no clear admission or investigation showing that all earlier clearances were without such marking. On this prima facie view, the demand and penalties could not justify immediate recovery.

Conclusion: Waiver of the entire duty demand and the penalties was granted, and the stay petitions were allowed.

---