2008 (7) TMI 1123 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
Violation of provisions of FERA - Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d)
Appellant's denial of involvement in illegal payments
Confirmation of handwriting on seized documents
Evidence of recipients admitting to receiving payments
Analysis of the burden of proof in economic offences

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi involved an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973. The appellant, Shri. Khaja Qutubuddin Afzal, was found to have received and made payments totaling Rs. 35,72,000 without RBI permission, leading to the confiscation of a portion of the amount. The appellant contested the charges, claiming innocence and denial of knowledge regarding the seized documents. However, the Govt. Examiner confirmed the appellant's handwriting on the documents, supporting the charges against him.

The appellant's defense included statements about being an agriculturist and having a misunderstanding with his uncle who allegedly orchestrated the case against him. Despite the appellant's denial, evidence from seized documents and statements of recipients incriminated him. The Enforcement Officers confirmed the handwriting match and identified the appellant as the deliverer of money. The recovery of substantial amounts without a valid source further strengthened the case against the appellant.

The judgment emphasized the burden of proof in economic offenses, stating that while proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary, it does not require mathematical precision. Quoting a Supreme Court case, the judgment highlighted the need for establishing a degree of probability for conviction in such cases. The Tribunal found the charges under Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) proven against the appellant, dismissing his appeal and upholding the penalty. The appellant was directed to pay the balance amount within a specified time frame, failing which the respondent could recover it according to the law.