Prima facie stay on duty demand granted where labels and monograms did not clearly prove brand-name marketing.

Pending appeal, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for stay and waiver because the labels and monograms, on first impression, did not conclusively show brand-name marketing or manufacturer identification. The goods were treated as pharmacopoeial products not marketed under a brand name, and the label colours were noted to be used by other manufacturers. The separate monogram was not regarded as decisive at that stage. The applicants were required to furnish a personal bond for the duty amount within the stipulated time and report compliance; on compliance, recovery was stayed and waiver of duty was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether, pending the appeal, the applicants had made out a prima facie case for stay and waiver of recovery of the duty demand, and whether the labels and monograms used on the goods indicated a brand name or manufacturer's identification.

Analysis: The claimed mark and label scheme was found, at first sight, to be supported by prior decisions cited before the Tribunal. The goods were described as pharmacopoeial products not marketed under a brand name, the colours on the labels were stated to be used by other manufacturers, and the inscription with the separate monogram was treated as not conclusive of brand-based marketing at this stage.

Outcome: The applicants were directed to furnish a personal bond for the duty amount within the stipulated time and report compliance, failing which the appeal would be liable to dismissal. On compliance, stay of recovery and waiver of the duty amount were granted.

---