TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely technical and therefore order in appeal dated 9th September 2004 is 2 Customs Appeal No.58 of 2006 liable to be quashed and set aside and thereupon setting aside order in appeal with consequential relief. (b) Whether Respondent contravened provisions of Section 11 of Customs Act read with Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 by giving deceptive markings on the goods for hiding the country of origin thereby rendering the goods (subject machines) liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act and also liable for penal action under Section 112 of Customs Act. (c) Any other question of law on the Hon'ble High Court may formulate and decide ?" 2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the above Appeal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent filed an Appeal. The Appellate Authority on the self same ground as mentioned in the order in original, confirmed the order of the adjudication authority and dismissed the Appeal. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal, the Respondents have filed a further Appeal before the CESTAT which came to be allowed by the CESTAT and the order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as the 4 Customs Appeal No.58 of 2006 First Appellate Authority came to be set aside by the CESTAT by its order dated 13th January 2006. As mentioned herein above, it is the said order which is challenged in the instant Appeal. 4. It is required to be stated that the requirement of mentioning the country of origin on the imported goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filed the Appeal before the CESTAT on the ground that in view of the exemption and especially clause (e) thereof they were exempted from the application of mentioning the country of origin.Though it is required to be stated that before the adjudicating authority as well as the First Appellate Authority, the Respondent had sought to justify that the mentioning of the country of origin as China, satisfied the requirement in so far as Section 117 is concerned. It was the case of the Respondent before the adjudicating authority as well as the First Appellate Authority that since the Respondent had not brought the said sewing machines for sale in the country, the mentioning of the country of origin was, therefore, merely a technical matter and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia and imported into India not for trade purposes other than for reexport, are entitled to exempted. It is pertinent to note that the CESTAT on an 7 Customs Appeal No.58 of 2006 interpretation of the exemption clause and especially by adverting to clause (e) of the exemption clause came to a conclusion that the Respondent was exempted from complying with the provisions of section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Act. The CESTAT has also observed that since the goods in question which were imported by the Respondent comes in their factory for the manufacture of final product, the provisions of Section 117 would not get attracted. The Tribunal also relied upon the Judgment of a Single Member of the Tribunal in case of Kumar Associates Vs. Th....