Labelling defect in imported bulk drugs upheld confiscation, but absence of misdeclaration justified reduction of fine and penalty.

Confiscation of imported bulk drugs was upheld because the goods suffered from a labelling defect, but there was no misdeclaration of value, description, or quality. The absence of the manufacturer's label on the containers did not, by itself, establish misleading labelling, even though some containers bore the supplier's name. On that basis, the confiscation was maintained while the redemption fine and penalty were reduced, reflecting that the defect justified enforcement action but not the higher monetary consequences originally imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported bulk drugs and the consequential penalty were sustainable, and whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The goods were held liable to confiscation, and that finding was confirmed. However, there was no finding of misdeclaration as to value, description, or quality. The discrepancy related only to the absence of the manufacturer's label on the containers, and the presence of some labels showing the supplier's name did not establish misleading labelling when the containers were found to bear no label at all.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1.25 lakhs and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 15,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in the redemption fine and penalty, while the confiscation was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of misdeclaration in value, description, or quality, a mere labelling defect not amounting to misleading information on the goods may justify confiscation but can warrant moderation of the redemption fine and penalty.

---