9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Analysis: Contravention of section 9(1)(a) - Appeal Nos. 420 to 423 of 1993: The appellants were alleged to have contravened section 9(1)(a) by making payments in foreign currency to a person outside India. The appellant argued that the findings were solely based on the statement of the firm's manager and not supported by adequate evidence. The tribunal noted that the customs had accepted the invoice value, and there was no proof of under-invoicing. It was emphasized that charges based on valuation require competent evidence, not just statements. The tribunal concluded that the contravention charge could not be sustained, leading to the setting aside of penalties. Contravention of section 9(1)(a) - Appeal Nos. 425 and 426 of 1993: Similar to the previous appeal, the charges against the appellants under section 9(1)(a) were found unsustainable, and the penalties were set aside based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the contravention allegations. Contravention of section 8(1) - Appeal Nos. 419 and 424 of 1993: The appellants were accused of contravening section 8(1) by unauthorized acquisition of foreign exchange. The tribunal reviewed the evidence, including seized documents and expenditure accounts, and found the explanations provided unsatisfactory. Despite arguments regarding penalty reduction, the tribunal upheld the contravention charges but reduced the penalties imposed by 50% due to the appellants' conduct not being indicative of intentional unauthorized dealings in foreign exchange. Final Decision: The tribunal allowed Appeal Nos. 420 to 423 and 425 to 426 of 1993, setting aside the charges and penalties under section 9(1)(a). Appeal Nos. 419 and 424 of 1993 were partly allowed, sustaining the contravention charges under section 8(1) but reducing the penalties by 50%. The appellants were directed to pay the revised penalties within 15 days, failing which the respondents could recover the amounts in accordance with the law.
|
