9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Prima facie case against the appellant. 3. Allegations of receiving instructions from abroad and making payments. 4. Falsely implicating the appellant. 5. Contradictory statements and evidence. 6. Setting aside the impugned order. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board concerns an appeal against the imposition of a penalty on the appellant under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that there was no prima facie case against him. The appellant denied receiving any money based on a confessional statement that was later retracted. The tribunal found that there was no clear evidence to establish the appellant's involvement, leading to a waiver of the pre-deposit condition for hearing the appeal on merit. The appeal also delved into the merit of the case, focusing on allegations of receiving instructions from abroad to make payments. The Enforcement Directorate claimed that the appellant had received instructions to transfer funds, which the appellant vehemently denied. The appellant maintained that he had not received any money from abroad and was falsely implicated in the matter. The tribunal considered conflicting statements and evidence presented by both parties, including the retracted statement of a witness and the lack of clear identification of the alleged contravener. The tribunal scrutinized the evidence on record, including contradictory statements and the lack of concrete proof linking the appellant to the alleged transactions. After thorough consideration and hearing arguments from both sides, the tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal had merit. Consequently, the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, absolving the appellant of the penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
|
