9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Violation of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Validity of confessional statement; Burden of proof for coercion in statement; Corroboration of evidence in retracted confessional statement.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act and confiscating a seized amount. The appellant did not appear, and the case proceeded for final disposal. 2. The appellant was accused of receiving funds from a person resident outside India without RBI permission. Investigations revealed the appellant's receipt of funds and his admission of receiving the amount for business from his brother in Jeddah. 3. The appellant contested the confessional statement's voluntariness, claiming the seized amount belonged to another individual. However, the evidence, including recovered slips, corroborated the initial statement, and the appellant failed to explain the delay in retraction. 4. The statutory provision of section 9(1)(b) prohibits receiving payments from non-resident individuals without RBI authorization. The appellant's retraction lacked substantiation, and the burden of proving coercion was not met, as per legal precedents. 5. The retracted confessional statement was found voluntary and supported by circumstantial evidence, including the substantial amount received and the relationship between the appellant and the sender. The appellant failed to justify the source of the seized funds. 6. The judgment concluded that the appellant was rightly held guilty of contravening section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate and in line with the severity of the offense. The appeal was dismissed, and the pre-deposited amount was to be appropriated towards the penalty.
|
