Country-of-origin marking on goods themselves is mandatory; documentary disclosure alone does not satisfy customs import conditions.

Imported goods marked only with the importer's name, without a country-of-origin indication on the goods themselves, were treated as non-compliant with Notification No. 1/64-Cus.; invoice and Bill of Entry disclosures were insufficient because the marking requirement had to be satisfied on the goods themselves. The article also notes that the absence-of-show-cause objection was rejected where a personal hearing had been granted and no objection was raised at that stage. Confiscation and penalty were upheld in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced after the Tribunal considered the value of the goods and found the original quantum excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported goods bearing the importer's name without an indication of the country of manufacture on the goods themselves were prohibited under Notification No. 1/64-Cus. and liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction having regard to the value of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether imported goods bearing the importer's name without an indication of the country of manufacture on the goods themselves were prohibited under Notification No. 1/64-Cus. and liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The notification required that goods made or produced outside India, when marked with a name or trade-mark of an Indian manufacturer, dealer or trader, must themselves bear a definite indication that they were made abroad and must show the country of origin in letters as large and conspicuous as the trade-mark. The invoice and Bill of Entry indicating origin were held insufficient, since the statutory condition had to be satisfied on the goods themselves. The challenge based on absence of show cause notice was rejected because a personal hearing had been granted and no objection had been raised at that stage. The valuation objection was also not accepted.

Conclusion: The import was held to be prohibited and the confiscation and penalty were sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction having regard to the value of the goods.

Analysis: While upholding confiscation and penalty in principle, the Tribunal took into account the approximate value of the goods and considered the quantum imposed by the adjudicating authority to be excessive.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld on merits, but the monetary consequences were reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs notification makes country-of-origin marking on the goods themselves a mandatory condition for lawful import, disclosure in accompanying documents does not amount to compliance.

---