Margate jewellers Hiltons has been fined £6,000 for falling foul of trade description laws.

One customer bought what she believed to be a Tiffany necklace and bracelet only to discover they were fake.

The company and manageress Kelly Hilton, 37, of Bleak House, Broadstairs, were sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court after admitting a total of 19 charges under the Trades Descriptions and Hallmarking Act.

Oliver Grimwood, prosecuting, told the court the offences were committed through negligence and there was no suggestion Hiltons knew it was buying sub-standard goods and pricing them above their worth.

The court heard that the customer who bought what she thought was Tiffany jewellery in December 2006 paid £140.

When they developed faults the shopper refused a repair but was offered a refund when an email from Tiffany and Co confirmed there were limited numbers of authorised outlets and suggested any items from Hiltons must be counterfeit.

Kent Trading Standards were informed and on January 23, 2007, officers seized 82 display items.

Jonathan Davies, defending, explained that although there were limited outlets for new Tiffany items, the same was not true for second hand goods.

Ms Hilton bought the bracelet and necklace in good faith and had no reason to believe they were fake, he said.

Mr Davies added: "There is nothing to be gained for them [Hiltons] to sell false goods. It would put their reputation - which is worth many thousands of pounds more than any piece of Tiffany jewellery - in peril."

Hiltons’ defence team said that other charges had resulted from mistakes when items were moved in and out of the shop window for insurance purposes. They ended up in the wrong boxes and wrongly labelled because it was difficult to control an estimated 3,000 stock items, Mr Davies said.

In another incident, a pair of synthetic sapphire earrings were mistakedly sold as diamond ruby drop earrings because, Mr Davies said, it was difficult to tell the difference without a refractometer - an instrument that costs thousands of pounds.

Wrong descriptions had been unintentionally applied to other items because hallmarking can be misleading, he said.

Hiltons, represented in court by boss Richard Hilton, was fined a total £6,000 for 14 charges - eight relating to supplying, offering to supply and possessing goods with a false trade description and six relating to hallmarking offences. They must also pay £8,000 costs.

In addition, Ms Hilton personally admitted five hallmarking offences and was fined £2,500.

She was told by Judge Michael O’Sullivan it was essential jewellers took great care and she had fallen well below expected standards.

She had been cautioned in 1998 for trademark and hallmarking matters and should have learnt her lesson then, said the judge. Ms Hilton was not ordered to pay costs.