9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order imposing penalty u/s 8(3) and 9(1)(a) of FERA for contravention, contention of forged documents acquisition, reliance on confessional statement, evidence of remittance abroad, retraction of statement, burden of proof.
Summary: The appellant appealed against the order imposing a penalty u/s 8(3) and 9(1)(a) of FERA for contravention. The Adjudicating Officer had imposed a penalty for failure to utilize foreign exchange as released and for remitting the same outside India without permission. The appellant contended that Section 8(3) was not attracted and the confessional statement was retracted, lacking corroboration. On the other hand, revenue argued that foreign exchange was acquired based on forged documents, fully proving offenses u/s 8(3) and 9(1)(a) of FERA. The tribunal found that the foreign exchange was acquired on forged documents and transferred abroad, rejecting the appellant's contentions. It held that the confessional statement, though retracted, was admissible as there was no evidence of coercion. Relying on precedent, the tribunal found documentary and circumstantial evidence supporting the charges against the appellant, noting the appellant's unique knowledge of clandestine dealings. The tribunal also held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof. Upon review, the court agreed with the tribunal's findings, stating that the mere allegation of coercion in the confessional statement was insufficient without evidence. It upheld the reliance on the confessional statement and found no reason to dispute the findings regarding forged documents acquisition and remittance abroad. The court deemed these findings as factual and not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
