Confiscation for use of another's brand name upheld, but redemption fine and penalty reduced for disproportionality.

Goods found bearing another person's brand name, "SUPER FIVE STAR", were held liable to confiscation because the marking appeared on the goods and the explanation of accidental use of an old die did not displace that finding. The confiscation was therefore sustained. However, the redemption fine and penalty were considered excessive on the recorded facts and were reduced. The operative principle is that branded goods using another party's mark may attract confiscation, but the monetary consequences must remain proportionate to the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the rice rubber rolls bearing another person's brand name was justified. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the rice rubber rolls bearing another person's brand name was justified.

Analysis: The goods were found bearing the brand name "SUPER FIVE STAR", and the statement of the partner supported the finding that the marking appeared on the goods. The explanation of accidental use of an old die did not displace the conclusion that the goods carried another person's brand name.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: Although confiscation was sustained, the quantum of fine and penalty was found to be excessive on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order sustaining confiscation was maintained, but the monetary consequences were substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are found bearing another person's brand name, confiscation may be sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty must still be proportionate to the facts and circumstances.

---