9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Identification of the supplier of smuggled gold, mistaken identity, sufficiency of evidence for penalty imposition. Analysis: The case involved the apprehension of individuals and seizure of smuggled gold biscuits and Indian currency. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the items and imposed penalties on the individuals involved. Appeals were filed before the Tribunal challenging the Commissioner's orders. The Tribunal remanded the case multiple times for fresh decisions. The final impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the present appellant. The main issue before the Tribunal was the identification of the supplier of the smuggled gold. The appellant argued that there was mistaken identity as he was not the person named by the witnesses. The witnesses provided incomplete and inconsistent information regarding the supplier's address and phone number. The appellant's consultant brought to light that the provided phone number belonged to a different individual residing at a different address. Despite this information, the Department failed to verify if the appellant had any connection to that phone number or address. Moreover, the witnesses did not positively identify the appellant as the supplier of the smuggled gold. The appellant claimed he was away from Mumbai during the relevant period for election purposes, further casting doubt on his involvement. Due to insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated gold, the penalty imposed on him was deemed unjustified and was set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument of mistaken identity and lack of substantial evidence linking him to the smuggled gold. Therefore, the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
