2001 (6) TMI 835 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for contravening the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty based on financial incapacity.
3. Consideration of an appeal in an ex parte proceeding.
4. Alleged attempt to smuggle foreign currency out of the country.
5. Retraction of statement by the appellant.
6. Double jeopardy claim by the appellant.
7. Authority to impose penalty based on seized foreign currency.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravening the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant sought dispensation of pre-deposit due to financial incapacity, but the petition lacked supporting documents. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte as notices were served to the appellant's counsel, considering it as notice to the appellant himself.

2. The appellant, a tailor by profession, claimed financial hardship and requested dispensation of pre-deposit. However, the petition lacked supporting material, and no undue hardship was demonstrated. The Tribunal found the appeal not fit for dispensation and proceeded to assess the case on merits, ultimately deeming it devoid of substance.

3. The appellant was apprehended for attempting to smuggle foreign currency out of the country. Despite initially admitting to the offense, the appellant later retracted his statement. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty, leading the appellant to appeal the decision.

4. The appellant contended that the retracted statement should not be relied upon and argued against the imposition of double jeopardy. However, the respondent argued that penalties could be imposed in addition to the seized foreign currency, and the adjudication proceedings were valid based on the Customs authorities' actions.

5. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties but found them lacking substance. The appellant failed to prove that the seized foreign currency was lawfully acquired, as required by the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on these reasons.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with foreign exchange regulations, the burden of proof in possession of foreign currency, and the consequences of attempting to smuggle currency out of the country.