Misdescription of party name and admissibility of ED statements were found insufficient to upset the penalty order.

A mere misdescription of a party's name, limited to the addition or omission of "Trading" while the address and identity remained consistent, was treated as a non-substantive error causing no prejudice to the defence. The commentary also states that statements recorded before Enforcement Directorate officers were admissible because such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that an unparticularised plea of duress was insufficient. On that basis, the record was said to sustain the finding of contravention and the penalty order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated by misdescription of the appellant's name. (ii) Whether the statements recorded from co-noticees and the available record sustained the finding of contravention and penalty under the foreign exchange .

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated by misdescription of the appellant's name.

Analysis: The variation in the appellant's name was confined to the addition or omission of the word "Trading" in parts of the order. The address remained consistent and the appellant was otherwise correctly identified. Such an error was treated as a mistake in description and not a defect of substance, causing no prejudice to the defence.

Conclusion: The misdescription did not vitiate the adjudication order and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded from co-noticees and the available record sustained the finding of contravention and penalty under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: Statements made before officers of the Enforcement Directorate were treated as admissible because such officers were not police officers for the purpose of sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plea of duress was unsupported by particulars and was rejected. The appellant, as appellant in appeal, carried the burden to show error in the adjudication order, and the record relied upon by the authority sufficiently connected the appellant with the hawala transactions alleged in the order.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld and the penalty order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the adjudication order remained in force, and the penalty was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere misdescription that does not create real uncertainty as to identity does not invalidate an adjudication, and statements made before Enforcement Directorate officers are admissible unless coercion or duress is specifically established.

---