Import prohibition under customs law cannot sustain confiscation without proof of continued applicability and importer non-compliance.

Import confiscation under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained where the authorities failed to establish that the alleged prohibition under the old trademark-related notification continued to apply under the prevailing legal regime. The record showed no examination of whether the earlier prohibition tied to section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 remained operative after the Trade Marks Act, 1999, nor whether the importer satisfied any exclusionary clause or substantive compliance requirement. Because the foundational enforceability of the prohibition and the importer's non-compliance were not properly assessed, confiscation and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import could be treated as prohibited under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the old notification and the erstwhile trademark provision, and whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained without examining the continued applicability of the prohibition and the importer's compliance.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Central Government to prohibit import of goods for specified reasons, including prohibitions arising under other laws. The notification relied upon by the authorities traced the prohibition to section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The record showed, however, that the authorities did not determine whether that prohibition continued to apply to the goods in question in 2004, or whether the goods satisfied the relevant requirements. The earlier trademark statute had been replaced by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the corresponding legal regime had changed. The authorities also did not examine whether the importer could claim the benefit of any exclusionary clause under the notification or whether substantive compliance had been established.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty could not be sustained, as the foundational issue of enforceability of the alleged prohibition was not properly examined.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A confiscation based on import prohibition cannot stand unless the authority first establishes the continued applicability of the relevant prohibition under the governing legal regime and the importer's non-compliance with it.

---