Test report on similar goods was insufficient to support confiscation and adverse licence coverage without testing the assessee's goods.

Confiscation and adverse licence coverage could not be sustained where the goods of the assessee were never tested through a competent agency and the authority relied only on a test report of similar goods from other parties. The report was found insufficient to establish that the assessee's goods were identical to the tested goods, especially after the report was disputed. The foundational evidence for the adverse finding was therefore inadequate, and the finding on licence coverage was set aside with consequential relief of redemption fine granted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of confiscation and licence coverage could be sustained on the basis of a test report relating to similar goods, and whether consequential relief of redemption fine was warranted.

Analysis: The revision was confined to the question of licence coverage. The lower authorities had proceeded against the goods without testing the petitioners' own goods through a competent agency. A test report concerning similar goods of other parties, even from the same manufacturer and around the same time, was held insufficient to conclude that the petitioners' goods were necessarily identical to the tested goods, particularly when the petitioners disputed the report. On that basis, the foundational evidence for the adverse finding was found inadequate.

Conclusion: The finding on licence coverage was set aside and the revision application was allowed, with consequential relief of redemption fine in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation or adverse licensing consequences cannot rest solely on a test report of similar goods; where the assessee disputes the report, the goods in question must be tested through a competent agency or supported by legally sufficient evidence.

---