9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellants based on mistaken identity. 2. Lack of proper investigation by the authorities into the identity of the individuals involved in the illicit transaction. Analysis: The appeal in this case was against the Order-in-Original imposing a personal penalty on the appellants for their alleged involvement in an illicit transaction. The incident involved an Ambassador Car carrying silver bars intercepted on its way to Daman. The appellants contended that they were not the individuals involved and that there was a mistake in identity due to the similarity in names with other suspects. They argued that no proper investigation was conducted to establish their actual involvement. The appellants claimed that the authorities failed to identify them conclusively and merely relied on the similarity in names, which was common in their community. The adjudication proceedings resulted in the imposition of a personal penalty on the appellants. During the appeal, the appellants reiterated their plea of mistaken identity, emphasizing the lack of proper inquiry into the matter. The Consultant representing the appellants argued that no interrogation, arrest, or identification parade was conducted to establish the appellants' connection to the illicit activity. The Department's failure to conclusively identify the individuals involved based on solid evidence was highlighted as a major flaw in the case. The appellants maintained that the order was legally flawed and requested it to be set aside. Upon review, it was observed that the authorities did not adequately investigate the identity of the individuals involved. Despite the appellants raising the issue of mistaken identity and providing information about other individuals with similar names associated with the illicit transaction, no substantial steps were taken to verify the appellants' involvement. The lack of proper connecting evidence linking the appellants to the illicit activity was deemed a critical deficiency in the case. The Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the adjudicating authority was unsustainable due to the absence of conclusive proof establishing the appellants' identity in the illicit transaction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order imposing the personal penalty on the appellants was set aside, providing them with consequential relief.
|
