2005 (11) TMI 537 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
Adjudication under FERA for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) - Violation of principles of natural justice - Appeal against penalty imposed.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an adjudication order imposing penalties under FERA for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) related to receiving and making payments without permission from RBI. The appellant contested the charges during adjudication, claiming innocence.

2. The appellant argued that he did not receive or make any payments as alleged, denying knowledge of the person involved. He claimed his statements were obtained forcibly during custody, alleging a violation of natural justice due to lack of cross-examination and access to his statement copy.

3. The appellant contended that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove the contraventions under FERA, citing case laws to support his stance. He emphasized the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt, challenging the evidential value of seized documents.

4. The respondent argued that the appellant's statements were corroborated, pointing to recovered documents with appellant's signatures. They defended the legality of the process, stating that witnesses were summoned, and documents were provided to the appellant during the hearing.

5. The Tribunal examined the evidence, noting the recovery of incriminating documents from the appellant's and another person's premises. They highlighted the appellant's admission of signatures on seized documents, indicating involvement in the transactions.

6. Regarding the allegation of violation of natural justice, the Tribunal found that witnesses' unavailability was not the adjudicating authority's fault. They referenced legal principles emphasizing the voluntary nature of statements and the need for proof of coercion, concluding the appellant's statement was voluntary and reliable.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed, dismissing the appeal. They found the adjudicating authority's decision well-founded, considering the corroborating evidence and the appellant's admission. The appellant was directed to pay the remaining penalty amount within a specified time frame.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalties imposed under FERA, rejecting the appellant's arguments and upholding the adjudication order based on the evidence presented.