9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA - Imposition of penalty based on retracted statement and corroborating evidence. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi pertains to two appeals against an order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Bombay, imposing a penalty on the appellant for violating Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA. The case involved the appellant depositing a significant amount in a fictitious account, allegedly on behalf of a resident of Dubai, thereby breaching FERA provisions. The appellant contested the charges, claiming that his statement was obtained under duress and retracted, citing the Apex Court's ruling in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India. The appellant argued that his retracted statement, the basis for the penalty, was coerced during custody by the Enforcement Directorate, rendering it unreliable. The Adjudicating Authority, however, relied on this statement, suggesting self-inflicted injuries to explain the retraction. The Tribunal highlighted the burden on the department to prove the voluntary nature of statements recorded in custody, as per the Vinod Solanki case. In this instance, the department failed to demonstrate the statement's voluntariness, undermining its validity as evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal scrutinized the corroborating evidence, emphasizing the necessity of supporting the retracted statement. The raid on the appellant's premises yielded no incriminating documents, raising doubts about the search and seizure procedures. The appellant's defense regarding the ownership of the premises and the documents found therein added complexity to the case. Despite the appellant's attempt to discredit the seized documents, Section 72 of FERA presumes the authenticity of such documents unless proven otherwise. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the retracted statement, when substantiated by the recovery of bank deposit slips, validated the charges against the appellant. The corroborative evidence indicated the appellant's involvement in depositing funds on behalf of a Dubai resident, aligning with the alleged FERA violations. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing both appeals for lack of interference in the impugned order.
|
