9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act regarding receipt of payment from a person resident outside India without RBI permission.
Summary: The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act. The appellant received Rs. 1,30,000 in 1993 from a person resident outside India without RBI permission. The appellant admitted to receiving the amount and using it to purchase a property for his daughter. The Enforcement Directorate seized Rs. 1,15,000 from the appellant's residence. The appellant later retracted his statement, claiming it was obtained under threat and coercion. The legal position under Section 9(1)(b) of the FERA, 1973 was considered, which prohibits receiving payments from a person resident outside India without RBI permission. The burden of proving that the confessional statement was obtained under duress was on the appellant, which he failed to discharge. The delay in retracting the statement and lack of documentary evidence to support the retraction were noted. The Supreme Court precedent highlighted the importance of proving inducement or coercion in such cases. The appellant's retracted statement was corroborated by the statement of another individual involved in hawala payments and circumstantial evidence. The retraction was deemed an afterthought made under legal advice. The appellant's assertion of threat and coercion lacked evidence to support it. The confessional statement was considered voluntary and true based on the evidence presented. Ultimately, the charges of contravening Section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act were found proved against the appellant. The penalty imposed was deemed commensurate with the gravity of the charge. The appeal was dismissed, directing the appellant to deposit the penalty amount within 30 days, failing which the respondent could recover it in accordance with the law.
|
