1998 (1) TMI 538 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under sections 9(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Absence of the appellant during the appeal proceedings.
3. Allegations of false case and lack of evidence by the appellant.
4. Dispute regarding the recovery of seized documents.
5. Validity of the appellant's denial of remittance of funds to India.
6. Corroboration of evidence from seized documents and statements.
7. Alleged contravention of section 9(1)(d) based on documentary evidence.
8. Adequacy of appellant's explanation and denial of charges.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board was against the imposition of a penalty on the appellant for contravention of sections 9(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Despite the absence of the appellant during the proceedings, the Board decided to proceed with the appeal based on the appellant's father's communication. The appellant had raised various contentions, including the assertion of a false case, lack of evidence, and denial of recovery of seized documents. However, the Board noted that the appellant's previous statements contradicted his current claims, and there was no substantial evidence to support his denials.

Regarding the dispute over the recovery of seized documents, the Board found that the appellant had previously contested the seizure in official documents but failed to challenge the Panchnama or provide additional evidence. The seized documents indicated that the appellant had been sending funds from Saudi Arabia to India for distribution, supported by statements recorded by Enforcement Officers. Despite the appellant's retractions, the Board concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish the contravention of section 9(3) without the need for a detailed breakdown of the remitted amounts.

Moreover, the Board upheld the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(d) based on documentary evidence, emphasizing the lack of a convincing explanation from the appellant to refute the allegations. The Board dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed on the appellant and allowing the respondents to utilize the deposited amount as payment. The decision was based on the corroborated evidence from seized documents and statements, highlighting the appellant's failure to provide a substantial defense against the charges brought under the Act.