9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Analysis: The appellant was charged with contravention of various sections of the Act but was exonerated of all charges except for contravention of section 8(1). The Adjudicating Officer held the appellant to be a person resident in India during a specific period, leading to the alleged contravention. The appellant presented evidence of his business activities in the USA and Hongkong, emphasizing his non-resident status during the relevant time. The appellant's counsel provided substantial evidence of the appellant's business operations in the USA and Hongkong, including company registrations, property purchases, and official documents. It was argued that the appellant did not conduct any business in India personally and transferred funds for legitimate business purposes abroad. The counsel contended that the appellant's non-resident status during the relevant period absolved him of the alleged contravention. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the Adjudicating Officer's finding of the appellant being a resident in India was justified. However, the evidence presented by the appellant's counsel strongly supported the appellant's non-resident status and continuous business activities outside India. The Tribunal noted that the evidence indicated the appellant's intention to continue business abroad and concluded that the charge of contravention of section 8(1) was not sustainable. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and directing the refund of the pre-deposit amount. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to return the appellant's passport promptly to facilitate his business activities outside India. The decision was based on the appellant's established non-resident status and the evidence supporting his business engagements abroad during the relevant period.
|
