Confiscation for duty-free clearances under a third-party brand name upheld, but redemption fine and penalty were reduced as excessive.

Goods cleared under a disputed third-party brand name without payment of duty were treated as dutiable and liable to confiscation, because the claim of export was not supported by compliance with the prescribed export procedure, such as export under bond or duty payment followed by rebate. However, the redemption fine and penalty were found excessive because a substantial part of the seized goods consisted of non-dutiable agricultural implements and the duty-related value was much lower than the total seizure value. The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to reflect proportionality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation for use of a third party brand name and non-payment of duty; (ii) whether the redemption fine and penalty were excessive and required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation for use of a third party brand name and non-payment of duty.

Analysis: The brand-name objection was not disputed by the appellant for the purpose of the appeal. The goods were therefore treated as dutiable goods cleared without payment of duty. The plea of export did not help, as the goods were not shown to have been exported under the prescribed procedure, such as export under bond or with duty payment followed by rebate claim.

Conclusion: The goods were held liable to confiscation.

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

Analysis: A substantial part of the seized goods consisted of agricultural implements on which no duty was payable, and after giving credit to the duty-related portion, the value on which duty was payable was much lower than the total seizure value. In that background, the original redemption fine and penalty were considered excessive.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, but the monetary consequences were substantially reduced, giving only partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods cleared under a disputed third-party brand name without compliance with the prescribed export procedure remain liable to confiscation, but redemption fine and penalty must be proportionate to the duty-related value and surrounding circumstances.

---