9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties for contravention of sections 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(a), and 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Allegations based on retracted confessional statements. 3. Lack of investigation by enforcement authorities. 4. Appellant's plea for dispensation of penalty deposit. 5. Consideration of evidence and findings by the adjudicating authority. 6. Prima facie case of hardship and waiver of pre-deposit requirement. 7. Need for re-adjudication with the supply of evidence to the appellant. 8. Evaluation of charges independently and determination of penalty quantum. 9. Remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal against penalties imposed for contravention of sections 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(a), and 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant had not deposited the penalty amount and sought dispensation. The allegations were primarily based on retracted confessional statements, raising concerns about the lack of investigation by enforcement authorities. 2. The appellant's representative argued that the enforcement authorities did not conduct a proper investigation, and the findings were solely based on retracted statements. It was contended that the appellant was not provided with all the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant denied the acquisition of foreign exchange as alleged, challenging the basis of the contravention of sections 8(1) and 8(2). 3. The respondent, however, highlighted that substantial evidence beyond the confessional statements was considered by the adjudicating authority. The respondent emphasized the appellant's serious violations and contraventions of customs and other laws. The issue of evidence disclosure to the appellant was raised, indicating that the appellant had access to the evidence through customs authorities. 4. The Chairman acknowledged the need for the appellant to have an opportunity to address the evidence considered in the impugned order. A prima facie case of hardship was recognized, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The decision was made to re-adjudicate the case after providing the appellant with the evidence discussed in the order. 5. The Chairman directed a fresh adjudication with a specific focus on evaluating the charges independently of the confessional statements. The adjudicating officer was instructed to consider all relevant evidence, allowing the appellant to defend against the charges. The determination of penalty quantum was left to the discretion of the adjudicating authority based on the degree of culpability and other circumstances. 6. Regarding the contravention of section 9(1)(c), it was noted that mere admissions before customs authorities might not suffice. The adjudicating officer was tasked with reevaluating this charge based on other evidence on record. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with the law, with a specified appearance date for the appellant.
|
