9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order imposing penalty and confiscating foreign currency u/s 63 of FERA Act for alleged contravention.
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order confirming the penalty and confiscation of foreign currency imposed on the appellant u/s 63 of the FERA Act. The appellant's appeal was based on the argument that there was no variance between the statements made by him during the search and preparation of Panchanama. The appellant consistently maintained that the seized US $1,300 belonged to his mother, who had kept it in his bedroom cupboard during her visit to India. The appellant's defense highlighted that possession does not necessarily imply acquisition, especially when there is no evidence indicating how the foreign exchange was acquired. Citing a judgment of the Apex Court, it was argued that mere possession without positive material on acquisition cannot lead to culpability. The High Court agreed with the appellant's contentions, finding that the impugned orders suffered from a perverse appreciation of evidence and were unsustainable. Consequently, the orders were quashed, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscated amount was to be returned to the appellant within eight weeks, with provisions for interest if delayed. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, directing the Revenue to return the confiscated foreign currency to the appellant within eight weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 10% per annum would be applicable. The appellant was granted the right to deal with the foreign exchange in accordance with the law upon its return. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
