9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Admissibility of photocopy documents as evidence. 3. Proof of compensatory payments in India in contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: The Appellant's Counsel contended that the SCN signed on 28-5-2002 and issued through post on 30-5-2002 was invalid as the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, ceased to operate after 31-5-2002. The Counsel argued that the SCN served on 4-6-2002 was beyond the permissible period, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani. However, this argument was not pressed further, and no reply was given by the Respondent, leaving the argument without further discussion. 2. Admissibility of photocopy documents as evidence: The Appellant's Counsel argued that photocopies of documents could not be accepted as relied on documents, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Customs v. East Punjab Traders. However, this argument was also not pressed further, and no reply was given by the Respondent, leaving the argument without further discussion. 3. Proof of compensatory payments in India in contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: The main contention was that there was no evidence of compensatory payments in India. The Appellant's Counsel argued that the deciphered entries from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Report only showed receipt of foreign exchange in Hongkong by Cecil Corporation but did not prove any compensatory payments in India. The Tribunal examined the Adjudication Order and found no evidence of payments made in India by the Appellant. The statements of various individuals, including Dipesh Chandok, S.M. Agarwal, and the Appellant, did not indicate any such payments. The Tribunal also reviewed statements from Hongkong and letters from the Venezuelan High Commission but found no evidence of compensatory payments. The argument that the Appellant was duty-bound to clear himself was dismissed as the charge was not of acquiring foreign exchange in Hongkong but of making compensatory payments in India. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of compensatory payments, making the Adjudication Order unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that legal evidence is necessary to prove contravention, and the Respondent failed to provide such evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion of compensatory payments was based on surmises and conjectures without legal proof. The Tribunal set aside and quashed the Adjudication Order, allowing the Appeal.
|
