2007 (9) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Use of brand name of others Once the complaint filed with customs withdrawn by owner, the matter ends and Comm. can not pass any order related to that matter If HC have granted an injunction in favors of defendant then goods could not be treated as prohibited. Confiscation by Comm. unjustified

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.
2. Confiscation of 'Topaz' blades under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Complaint filed by M/s. Malhotra International Pvt. Ltd.
4. Settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint.
5. Legal implications of the settlement on the confiscation of goods.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of 1540 cartons of 'Topaz' blades. The issue at hand was whether the imposition of these fines and penalties was legally justified.

2. The goods were treated as prohibited goods and liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to a complaint filed by M/s. Malhotra International Pvt. Ltd. regarding the export of goods bearing their brand name "Topaz." However, a lawsuit was filed by Malhotra International Pvt. Ltd. in the Bombay High Court, which resulted in an injunction against the defendants. Eventually, the parties settled the matter, and the suit was decreed based on consent terms. Despite the settlement and withdrawal of the complaint by the owner, the adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation.

3. The Appellate Tribunal noted that once the complaint was withdrawn, the matter should have been considered closed. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods could only be treated as prohibited if the High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra International. Since the parties settled the dispute, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner should not have proceeded with the confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal referenced Shakespeare to highlight that legal impediments should not have been admitted once the parties reached a settlement.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the findings of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, as the matter was resolved between the parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal process should have respected the settlement and withdrawal of the complaint, leading to the appeal being allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the imposition of fines and confiscation in customs matters, emphasizing the importance of settlements and withdrawal of complaints in legal proceedings.