9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Contravention of provisions - Resident status determination - Proof of necessary facts - Legal status of person resident outside India. Analysis: The judgment involved appeals related to the imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalties were imposed on Associated Travels (P.) Ltd. and S. Parameshwaran for alleged contraventions of section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Act. The case revolved around a transaction where Indian currency was paid to a person allegedly residing outside India. The authorities relied on a visiting card to establish the non-resident status of the individual, Hameed Abdul Kader. The appellants contested this claim, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove Kader's non-resident status. The key issue was whether Kader could be considered a person resident outside India based solely on the visiting card. The legal interpretation focused on the definitions of "person resident outside India" and "person resident in India" as per the Act. The Act stipulates that a person residing in India cannot simultaneously be considered a resident outside India. The judgment emphasized the need to establish specific facts indicating a person's intention to stay outside India for a certain period to be classified as a non-resident. In this case, since Kader was an Indian citizen, the burden of proof lay in demonstrating his non-resident status based on his activities and intentions. The appellants argued that the authorities should have conducted a more thorough investigation into Kader's status, including obtaining his statement or evidence to support his non-resident status. The judgment highlighted that while the authorities may not directly exercise certain powers, they could seek assistance from other departments or courts to gather relevant information. The failure to properly establish Kader's non-resident status through legally acceptable evidence raised doubts about the validity of the charges against the appellants. Ultimately, the court concluded that the visiting card alone was insufficient to prove Kader's non-resident status conclusively. Without concrete evidence establishing Kader's status as a resident outside India, the charges of violating the Act could not be substantiated. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed unwarranted, and the orders of the authorities were set aside. The judgment emphasized the importance of legally acceptable evidence in proving violations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
|
