9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Determination of the appellant's residency status under the Act. 3. Consideration of evidence regarding the appellant's foreign employment. 4. Possession of foreign currencies seized from the appellant. 5. Compliance with notification regarding declaration of foreign currency. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board pertains to an appeal against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant was alleged to have purchased foreign currency from the black market. The primary issue was the determination of the appellant's residency status under the Act, specifically whether he was a person resident in India at the relevant time. The appellant claimed to be a non-resident Indian (NRI) based on his foreign employment, providing detailed evidence of his employment in the UAE. The Adjudicating Officer, however, found the appellant to be a resident in India based on various factors, including his permanent address and family residing in India. The Board analyzed the provisions of the Act defining a person resident outside India and the categories exempted from being considered residents in India under section 2(p). The appellant contended that his employment abroad should establish his non-resident status, emphasizing the documentary evidence of his employment in the UAE. The Tribunal criticized the Adjudicating Officer for overlooking the evidence of foreign employment and focusing on the appellant's intention to stay outside India. The Tribunal clarified that falling under any one of the specified categories of non-resident status should suffice, rendering further inquiry redundant. Given the substantial evidence of the appellant's foreign employment, the Tribunal concluded that he was a person resident outside India at the relevant time. Regarding the possession of seized foreign currencies, the appellant referenced notifications allowing the import and export of foreign currency without declaration up to a certain limit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that he was not required to declare the foreign currency upon arrival in India. The burden of proof then shifted to the department to prove the appellant's purchase of foreign currency in the black market, which the Adjudicating Officer failed to substantiate. The Tribunal emphasized that mere allegations without evidence do not establish an offense. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the return of the seized foreign currencies to the appellant within a specified period. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the appellant's residency status, the legality of his possession of foreign currencies, and compliance with relevant notifications under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the legal provisions resulted in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
