9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Adjudication Order under FERA for contravention of section 9(1)(d) - Existence of Shri Hameed of Dubai - Burden of proof on department - Reliance on alleged confessional statements - Retraction of statements - Corroboration of confessional statements - Legal principles regarding retracted confessions - Compliance with legal tests by adjudicating authority. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the Adjudication Order under FERA, contesting the penalty imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(d) by making payments to individuals in India under instructions from a person in Dubai, Shri Hameed. The appellant denied the existence of Shri Hameed and questioned the burden of proof on the department to establish the identity of the person outside India giving instructions, citing legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of proving such elements. 2. The appellant responded to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) with a detailed reply refuting the charges and requested the charges to be dropped. Despite the appellant's contentions, adjudication proceedings were conducted leading to the impugned order. The appellant also filed an interim application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty, which was partially granted by the Tribunal. 3. During the appeal hearing, arguments were presented by the appellant's advocate and the respondent's representative. The appellant's counsel contended that the impugned order was based on conjecture, questioning the lack of evidence regarding the existence of Shri Hameed. The respondent's representative argued that the non-existence of Shri Hameed did not affect the case's merits, emphasizing the importance of payment instructions from a person outside India for the alleged contravention. 4. The appellant further argued that the alleged confessional statements were obtained under duress and retracted later, thus lacking credibility without independent corroboration. The respondent contended that the adjudicating officer based findings on the recorded statements and seized documents, highlighting the absence of admission of receipt by the alleged recipient and lack of identification of the appellant by the recipient. 5. Legal principles regarding retracted confessions were discussed, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the voluntary nature of confessions and the need for corroboration. The importance of examining the voluntariness and truthfulness of retracted confessions was highlighted, along with the necessity of corroborating such statements with other evidence. 6. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not adequately consider the voluntariness and reliability of the retracted confessional statements, leading to unsustainable findings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The respondent was directed to refund the pre-deposit made by the appellant within a specified timeframe.
|
