Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + AT FEMA - 2008 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (6) TMI 640 - AT - FEMA

Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of sections of FER Act, 1973 based on abetment by assisting in wrongful acquisition of foreign currency, receiving and distributing money, and making payments for property outside India.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of sections of the FER Act, 1973, based on allegations of abetment by assisting in various illegal activities. The appellant's late brother, who was involved in importing old hand cars, had sold these cars in the Indian market. However, it was revealed that the imported cars were not purchased in the name of the dealer but in the name of other individuals without the financial capacity for such imports. The late brother had admitted to violating provisions of the FER Act, but later retracted his statement. The appellant also made an admissional statement, but did not retract it. The Tribunal highlighted that the onus or burden of proof lies on the appellant under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal noted the presence of two admissional statements, one retracted by the late brother and the other by the appellant, which was not retracted.

The Tribunal referred to legal precedents regarding retracted statements and their admissibility. It cited the Supreme Court's stance that the voluntary nature of a statement is crucial and that retraction alone does not render a statement involuntary. The Tribunal also mentioned a case where reliance on a retracted confession was allowed if found voluntary and true. It was emphasized that admissional statements of co-noticees can be relied upon for establishing guilt. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had actively assisted his late brother in contravening the FER Act, and abetment was proven beyond reasonable doubt. No errors in the impugned order were identified, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with the impugned order sustained and the pre-deposited penalty amount to be appropriated towards the penalty.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates