9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Allegation of receiving Rs. 3 lakhs from a non-resident brother. 3. Denial of receiving the amount and challenge to the voluntariness of the statement. 4. Evidence presented by the appellant to explain the source of seized amount. 5. Reliance on appellant's statement and circumstantial evidence by the Adjudicating Officer. 6. Lack of evidence supporting the charge of contravention under section 9(1)(b). 7. Consideration of the seized amount and penalty recovery. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was alleged to have received Rs. 3 lakhs from his non-resident brother. The appeal was disposed of on its merits. 2. The appellant did not dispute the relationship with his non-resident brother but denied receiving the alleged amount. He claimed that his statement was not voluntary and challenged the denial of the right to cross-examine the officers involved in his apprehension. The appellant provided explanations, including the sale of his lorry and hand loans, supported by affidavits. 3. The Adjudicating Officer based the finding on the appellant's statement and circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of an envelope from the brother. The officer rejected the retraction of the statement and found the affidavits unreliable due to the timing of submission. 4. The appellant attempted to prove the statement's falsity by detailing the source of the amount, citing the sale of the lorry. However, the lack of evidence of depositing the sale proceeds raised doubts. The appellant's explanation for carrying the cash and intended land purchase lacked supporting evidence. 5. The judgment highlighted the reliance on the appellant's disputed statement and the absence of corroborative evidence. The appellant's request to cross-examine the Police Officers involved in his detention was not considered, leading to procedural flaws. 6. The absence of independent evidence to support the charge of contravention under section 9(1)(b) was emphasized, questioning the validity of the allegations against the appellant. 7. The judgment set aside the impugned order, noting the lack of sustained evidence for the charge. The penalty recovery was annulled, and the seized amount was subject to further action by the income-tax authorities within a specified period, failing which it would be returned to the appellant.
|
