2002 (2) TMI 130 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board setting aside a previous order and leaving the question of further proceedings open.

Analysis:
The case involved a criminal appeal challenging the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, which set aside a previous order and left open the question of further proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. The facts of the case included the search of premises resulting in the seizure of incriminating documents, contraband gold, and Indian currency, along with statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Appellate Board concluded that the charge of abetment under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not proven, but there might be a charge under Section 13(2) of the Act. The Board highlighted that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be considered as evidence for adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant disputed the statements as involuntary and unreliable, emphasizing discrepancies with evidence from Hong Kong Customs Authorities.

The Appellate Board found that the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act lacked corroboration from the evidence obtained from Hong Kong Customs Authorities, making it unreliable. The Board noted that the investigating agency failed to establish the charge adequately, relying on inadmissible evidence and contradictory information. The Board emphasized the inadmissibility of a third party's testimony and the importance of proper evidence to substantiate charges. The Board criticized the adjudicating officer for not correctly appreciating the arguments on the admissibility and evidentiary value of evidence, leading to flawed conclusions.

In the final judgment, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Board, dismissing the criminal appeal. The Court agreed with the Board's reasoning that the appellant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act lacked credibility due to the lack of corroboration from the evidence obtained from Hong Kong Customs Authorities. The Court upheld the Board's findings regarding the inadequacy of evidence and the incorrect appreciation of legal concepts by the adjudicating officer. Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in establishing charges under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures and evidentiary standards to ensure fair adjudication.