9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant allegedly received and made payments without RBI exemptions. The evidence included statements, documents, and a list seized during a search. The appellant disputed the authenticity of the seized list, claiming it was planted. The amounts in question were derived from this list and the appellant's statements. 2. The crucial issue was whether the list was genuinely recovered from the appellant's premises. The Adjudicating Officer relied on this list and the appellant's statement. However, an enquiry revealed that the list was not the basis for charging the appellant but was from past transactions. The appellant argued the list was planted, supported by the origin of the envelope and a Malayalam letter not incriminating him. 3. The Adjudicating Officer erred in relying on the seized documents and list. The appellant's statement was disputed, and the evidence was not conclusive. The appellant's denial of the list's authenticity, along with discrepancies in statements, weakened the case. The evidence failed to establish the contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d). 4. The appellant contested the seizure of documents, claiming they were delivered by a postman to Enforcement Officers during a search. The appellant sought to cross-examine the postman and search officer, but a clarification by an Enforcement Officer contradicted the seizure claim, rendering the denial irrelevant. 5. The lack of substantial evidence undermined the charges of contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d). The only evidence, three seized drafts, was refuted by the clarification provided by an Enforcement Officer. The connection between the appellant and the drafts could not be established, leading to the insufficiency of evidence for the charges. 6. Consequently, the finding of contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) could not be upheld, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order. The evidence did not support the charges, leading to the appeal's success. 7. The order of confiscation was also challenged, with the seized amount of Rs. 6,000 deemed unconnected to any contravention and thus set aside. However, the confiscation of three drafts disowned by the appellant amounting to Rs. 15,000 was upheld due to lack of ownership. 8. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the order of confiscation of Rs. 6,000 was revoked, with a directive for the respondents to refund the amount within 45 days.
|
