9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and probative value of confessional statements. 2. Legality of the penalty imposed. 3. Legality of the confiscation order. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements for pre-deposit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Voluntariness and Probative Value of Confessional Statements: The appellants argued that the confessional statements recorded from them were not voluntary but were made under threat, physical assault, and coercion by the Enforcement Directorate officials. They retracted these statements the very next day before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Calcutta. Medical reports from the Superintendent of Alipore Central Jail indicated physical injuries on the appellants, corroborating their claims of coercion. The adjudicating officer failed to consider these retractions and the context in which the statements were made, leading to erroneous findings of contravention under sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA). 2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed: The penalties imposed on the appellants were based on the retracted statements, which were not given voluntarily. The adjudicating officer relied heavily on these statements despite their retraction and the lack of corroborative evidence. The penalties ranged from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,04,000, depending on the appellant. The tribunal found that the reliance on coerced statements and the lack of independent evidence rendered the penalties unsustainable. 3. Legality of the Confiscation Order: The confiscation of Indian currency (Rs. 5 lakhs) and a silver bar (2,974 gms) from H.P. Karel was also challenged. The appellant argued that the silver was part of a legitimate purchase from Krishna Trading Corporation, Mumbai, and the currency was not involved in any illicit transaction. The tribunal found that the adjudicating officer did not adequately consider the appellant's evidence and explanations regarding the origin of the seized items. The order of confiscation was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of proof of involvement in unauthorized dealings. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Pre-deposit: The appellants had filed applications for dispensation of pre-deposit of the penalty, citing financial hardship. The tribunal had initially ordered a 25% pre-deposit, but the appellants sought further time due to their financial condition. Despite non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, the tribunal decided to hear the appeals on merits to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The tribunal found that the adjudicating officer's findings were based on flawed evidence and thus set aside the penalties and confiscation orders. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed all four appeals, setting aside the impugned findings, penalties, and confiscation orders. The reliance on retracted and coerced statements, lack of independent evidence, and procedural irregularities led to the conclusion that the enforcement actions were legally unsustainable.
|
