9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Section 9(1)(d): - The appellant, Shri R Murugesan, paid Rs. 20,000 to Shri Munisamy under instructions from Shri Srinivasan, a person resident outside India. - The appellant contended that he acted as an agent of Shri Srinivasan and had no connection in the transaction. - The Tribunal held that section 9(1)(d) prohibits any payment by or on behalf of a person resident outside India through his agent in India. - The contention of acting as an agent did not absolve the appellant from contravening section 9(1)(d). - The Tribunal confirmed the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(d) against the appellant. 2. Violation of Section 9(1)(b): - Shri Munisamy received Rs. 20,000 from Shri Murugesan under instructions of his brother, Shri Sivaprakasam of St. Paul Reunion. - The money was deposited into the account of Mrs. Sarojini, wife of Shri Srinivasan. - The appellant maintained that he acted in good faith and rendered a service without any benefit. - The Tribunal held that even receipt of money on behalf of a person resident outside India falls under section 9(1)(b) if no permission from the Reserve Bank is obtained. - The charge of contravention of section 9(1)(b) was established against the appellant. 3. Violation of Section 9(1)(a): - Shri Munisamy made a payment for the credit of Smt. Sarojini, a person resident outside India, without permission from the Reserve Bank. - The appellant admitted to the payment but claimed it belonged to Shri Srinivasan and was deposited in his wife's account. - The Tribunal held that family transactions are not excluded from the scope of section 9(1)(a). - The charge of contravention of section 9(1)(a) was established against the appellant. 4. Penalty Imposition: - The Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 for each violation, considering the contravention involving Rs. 20,000. - The Tribunal found the penalty reasonable and lenient, especially since the amount was not confiscated in addition to the penalty. - The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' argument that the penalty was excessive. 5. Final Decision: - The Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and confirmed the adjudication orders. - The appeals were dismissed, upholding the penalties and charges against the appellants for violating the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
|
