9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Request for adjournment of hearing and refixing the hearing of appeal. 2. Alleged contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 3. Appeal against penalties imposed on the appellant. 4. Interpretation of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) in the context of the case. 5. Reduction of penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(d). The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi addressed various issues. Initially, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment due to the appellant's health issues and inability to locate necessary documents. However, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request considering the small penalty amount and the case's age, deciding to proceed with the appeal on its merits. The case involved allegations of contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, based on the appellant's receipt of funds from a non-resident person and payment of Customs duty on their behalf. The appellant challenged the Adjudicating Officer's findings, arguing against the admission of receiving funds from a local person on behalf of the non-resident son-in-law. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and acquitted the appellant of contravening section 9(1)(b) due to insufficient proof of instructions from the non-resident. However, regarding section 9(1)(d), the Tribunal upheld the contravention based on the appellant's payment for the son-in-law's Customs duty. The penalty imposed under section 9(1)(d) was reduced from Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 1,000, with adjustment against the pre-deposit made by the appellant. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and the appellant's contentions, ultimately partially allowing the appeal based on the findings for each section of the Act.
|
