9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of sections 9(1)(a)(b) and 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Allegations: - The appeals were filed against the order imposing penalties for violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. - The appellants were accused of illegal dealings in foreign exchange related to import/export of goods. - Specific allegations were made against each appellant regarding receipt and payment of significant amounts in violation of the Act. 2. Arguments Raised: - The appellants argued that the findings were based on conjectures and lacked proper evidence. - They contended that Customs clearance of goods indicated no under-invoicing and disputed the Enforcement Directorate's claims. - The appellants challenged the Department's failure to prove the residential status of Bangladeshi indentors and questioned the credibility of statements. 3. Evaluation of Evidence: - The appellants denied under-invoicing and commission payments, claiming threats and physical assault during statements. - The Adjudicating Officer was required to prove violations beyond reasonable doubt due to the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings. - Detailed examination of transactions and statements led to the conclusion that violations had occurred. 4. Findings and Orders: - The Adjudicating Officer found Teja Singh guilty of contravening section 9(1)(a) and Dilip Kundu of section 64(2) read with section 9(1)(a) for specific amounts. - The penalties imposed were considered disproportionate, leading to a reduction in Teja Singh's penalty amounts by 50%. 5. Conclusion: - The appeals were disposed of, confirming the violations and modifying the penalty amounts for Teja Singh while upholding the penalties for Dilip Kundu. - The judgment highlighted the importance of clear evidence in establishing violations and the need for proportionate penalties in such cases.
|
