Brand name classification in excise turns on trade indicia linking goods to the manufacturer, not just one omitted word.

Goods packed in unit containers may fall within Chapter 20 sub-heading 2001.10 if the packing bears a brand name or any writing, mark, or trade indicia that connects the product with the manufacturer in the course of trade. The absence of the specific words "Inland Valley" did not change the classification, because the second packing still carried product description, manufacturer details, and other marks showing that connection. On that reasoning, the second type of packing remained classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10 and did not qualify for sub-heading 2001.90.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents' clearances of French Fries in the second type of packing, which did not bear the words "Inland Valley" but carried other indicia connecting the product with the manufacturer, were classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10 of Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or under sub-heading 2001.90.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the meaning of "brand name" in Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, under which sub-heading 2001.10 covers goods put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name, while sub-heading 2001.90 covers others. The packing used for the second clearances still contained the product description, manufacturer details and other trade marks or marks that established a connection in the course of trade between the product and the manufacturer. On that reasoning, the omission of the words "Inland Valley" did not take the goods outside the scope of brand-name packing, because the statutory definition extends to any writing or mark used to indicate such connection in trade.

Conclusion: The second type of packing also fell within sub-heading 2001.10 and was not eligible for sub-heading 2001.90.

---