9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant purchased foreign exchange without permission and sold it at unauthorized rates. The appellant claimed his statement was coerced and he did not earn from the transactions. The statutory scheme prohibits dealing in foreign exchange without authorization. The appellant admitted to facilitating transactions for friends involving foreign exchange. The person buying the foreign exchange admitted to dealing without an RBI license. The appellant retracted his statement, but failed to prove coercion. Legal precedents state retracted confessions can be valid if proven voluntary and corroborated. The appellant's assertion of coercion lacked evidence. The tribunal found the appellant guilty of contravening the Act and upheld the penalty as appropriate given the gravity of the offense. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was confirmed. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to foreign exchange regulations and the consequences of contravening such laws. The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish coercion in statements. The tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support retracted confessions. The decision underscores the seriousness of unauthorized foreign exchange dealings and the need for penalties to reflect the gravity of such offenses.
|
