9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for contravention of FERA, 1973. 2. Compliance with pre-deposit requirement. 3. Failure to appear during hearings. 4. Contention regarding lack of legally admissible evidence. 5. Consideration of confessional statement. 6. Reliance on show-cause notice and supporting documents. 7. Legal analysis of the confessional statement. 8. Admissibility of fax message as evidence. 9. Upholding of the impugned order and penalty imposition. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under FERA, 1973 for acquiring foreign exchange and making payments in contravention of specific sections. The penalty was imposed based on the findings of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate. 2. The appellant was directed to deposit a pre-determined amount as a pre-deposit, which was complied with as per the Tribunal's direction. 3. Despite multiple hearing dates being set, the appellant failed to appear or be represented, leading to the final disposal of the appeal on merit due to the statutory requirement of disposing of appeals within a specified timeframe. 4. The main contention raised was the lack of legally admissible evidence supporting the impugned order, primarily relying on the appellant's statement without additional concrete evidence. 5. The argument revolved around the confessional statement made under FERA, 1973 by the appellant, admitting to certain transactions involving foreign exchange, which formed the basis of the penalty imposition. 6. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant referenced various documents, including letters, cheques, and statements, to establish the contravention of FERA sections, forming the basis for the penalty. 7. The judgment extensively analyzed the legal position regarding the admissibility and credibility of confessional statements, emphasizing the voluntary nature and the need for corroboration to establish the truthfulness of such statements. 8. The admissibility of a fax message as evidence was discussed, highlighting that irregularities in recovery do not render evidence inadmissible, citing relevant legal precedents to support the admissibility of seized documents. 9. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and directing the appellant to deposit the remaining penalty amount within a specified timeframe, failing which recovery would be pursued by the Enforcement Directorate in accordance with the law.
|
