9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973 - Contravention of payment to persons in India on behalf of a person resident outside India without RBI permission. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi pertains to an appeal against Adjudication No.49/94/AD(KNS) imposing a penalty on Manoranjan Bank for contravening Section 9(1)(d) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant was penalized for making payments to various individuals in India on behalf of a person from Bangladesh without RBI permission. The appellant did not appear, and the report confirmed that notice was served through affixation. The investigation revealed that the bank made payments to Indian individuals under instructions from a person outside India, with details coded in documents seized during a search. The appellant initially admitted to these payments but later retracted the statement, claiming coercion and threat during its recording. The appellant argued that the statement was not voluntary and should not be considered against them. However, the burden of proof lay on the appellant to establish coercion or threat in obtaining the statement. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the voluntary nature of statements crucial for validity. The retracted statement can be accepted if proven voluntary and corroborated by evidence. In this case, the documentary and circumstantial evidence supported the initial admission, indicating voluntariness. The Tribunal cited legal principles requiring subjective assessment of retraction before accepting an inculpatory statement as voluntary. Considering the evidence and circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Officer's decision, finding the appellant guilty of the contravention. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate in relation to the amount involved in the violation. The judgment affirmed the correctness of the findings and upheld the penalty. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, with the penalty already adjusted from the seized amount towards payment. The decision highlighted the importance of voluntary statements and the need for corroborating evidence to support retracted confessions in legal proceedings.
|
