2013 (12) TMI 522 - AT - Customs

Export of Automobile Spare Parts - Goods carrying markings like suitable for Mercedes Benz and SM products Mercedes Benz - Prohibition on export under Notification No. 135/60-Cus., dated 31-12-1960 and Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 issued under Section 11 and S.O. 1272 issued under S.117 - Held that - records do not show that the goods were indicating any wrong Trade Mark or Trade Name because there was no indication to the effect that the goods were manufactured by Daimler Chrysler, though there was a indication to the effect that goods were suitable for Mercedes Benz . Further Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 prohibits only import of goods with false Trade Mark and not export of such goods. So reliance on this notification is misplaced - provisions of the SO 1272 did not apply to the impugned goods because there is nothing coming on record to show that the goods were manufactured with wholly or partly foreign parts. The Revenue has not produced any evidence to support their argument that the exemption in clause 5 will not apply. The lower authorities have accepted this argument. Now the only argument given is that the appellant is a trader. No other prohibition has been placed before us that would prohibit the exports of the impugned goods - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notifications prohibiting export of goods bearing specific markings.
2. Application of exemptions under relevant notifications for goods meant for export.
3. Determining if goods were manufactured for export or not.
4. Alleged misinterpretation of provisions by lower authorities.
5. Examination of markings on goods and their compliance with trade regulations.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the export of Automobile Spare Parts bearing markings related to a specific brand, "Mercedes Benz," which raised concerns for the Revenue regarding the applicability of notifications prohibiting such exports. The Revenue seized the goods and issued a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation and denial of benefits based on the notifications.

2. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proposals, citing that the relevant notifications did not apply to goods meant for export and that one of the notifications specifically related to imports, not exports. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal.

3. The Revenue argued that the goods bearing the brand name of "Daimler Chrysler" were not manufactured solely for export, as the Respondent was a trader. They relied on specific provisions to support their claim, alleging misinterpretation by the lower authorities.

4. The Respondent's Counsel contended that the markings on the goods did not indicate they were manufactured by "Daimler Chrysler" but rather were suitable for "Mercedes Benz." They argued that the relevant notifications did not apply to goods meant for export, emphasizing compliance with regulations.

5. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the goods did not bear incorrect trademarks or trade names, as there was no indication they were manufactured by "Daimler Chrysler." The Tribunal clarified that the prohibition under the notifications related to imports, not exports, and that the goods were intended for export to Nigeria.

6. The Tribunal further analyzed the provisions of the notifications, emphasizing that the restrictions did not apply to the impugned goods as there was no evidence of them being manufactured with foreign parts. They noted the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's argument against the exemption clause for goods made solely for export, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal interpretations, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning in resolving the issues raised in the legal judgment.

← Previous Next →