9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Requirement of pre-deposit of penalty amount. 3. Discrepancies in the amounts and dates mentioned in the show cause notices (SCNs). 4. Interpretation of section 9(1)(b) regarding receipt of payments by a person resident outside India. 5. Knowledge requirement for contravention of section 9(1)(b). 6. Evidence of corresponding remittance for payments received. 7. Allegation of payment made by one party on behalf of another. 8. Misconception in applying provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Contravention of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) on the first appellant. 10. Misconceived charge of contravention of section 9(1)(b) against the second appellant. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants argued against the requirement of pre-deposit, claiming full disclosure of transaction details and lack of contravention. The Chairman decided to waive the pre-deposit, citing undue hardship. The discrepancies in amounts and dates in the SCNs were noted, with the Chairman deeming the duration discrepancy irrelevant. The interpretation of section 9(1)(b) was extensively analyzed, emphasizing the knowledge requirement for contravention and the significance of corresponding inward remittances. The judgment delved into the appellant's knowledge regarding payments received and the evidence of corresponding remittances. It highlighted that the appellant's meticulous record-keeping and the circumstances indicated legal receipt of funds. The Chairman concluded that the contravention of section 9(1)(b) was not established, especially in the absence of evidence from the party alleged to have made the payments. Regarding the allegation of payment made on behalf of another party, it was reasoned that the payments were covered by general permission, thus not constituting a contravention of section 9(1)(d). Furthermore, the judgment addressed the misconceived application of the old Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately set aside the impugned order against both appellants. The refund of deposited penalty amounts was ordered within a specified timeframe. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the legal interpretation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the specific circumstances of the case, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellants.
|
