Confiscation for third-party brand use upheld, but redemption fine and penalty reduced after excluding non-duty agricultural implements.

Use of a third-party brand name rendered the goods liable to confiscation, but the monetary consequences were found excessive because part of the seized goods consisted of agricultural implements on which no duty was payable. After excluding that portion and allowing abatement, the duty-related value was lower than the value used to fix the redemption fine and penalty. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the facts of the case, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on account of confiscation were liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The use of a third-party brand name was not contested, and the goods were therefore liable to confiscation. However, the record showed that part of the seized goods related to agricultural implements on which no duty was payable, and after excluding that portion and allowing abatement, the duty-related value stood at a lower figure than that adopted for the impugned penalties. On that basis, the monetary consequences were found to be excessive.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

---