2011 (2) TMI 1298 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to an Adjudication Order u/s 9(1)(a), 9(91)(c), 16(d) of FERA and 16(1)(a) of FER Act, 1973.

Violation of Section 9(1)(a) of FERA:
The appellant challenged the Adjudication Order imposing penalties for various violations. The Adjudicating Authority found some allegations to be true and imposed penalties based on retracted statements without sufficient corroborative evidence.

Violation of Section 9(91)(c) of FERA:
One of the Show Cause Notices alleged unauthorized payments made abroad without RBI permission. The appellant claimed these payments were for rent but later retracted the statement. The Adjudicating Authority relied solely on the retracted statement, contrary to legal principles.

Violation of Section 16(d) of FERA:
Another Show Cause Notice accused the appellant of acknowledging a debt without proper evidence. The only evidence presented was an entry in the appellant's diary, which was deemed insufficient to prove acknowledgment of debt.

Violation of Section 16(1)(a) of FER Act, 1973:
The appellant was charged with receiving payments from a foreign entity without proper authorization. The Adjudicating Authority found the appellant guilty based solely on retracted statements without independent corroborative evidence.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal found the Adjudication Order unsustainable as it did not adhere to legal principles, especially regarding the reliance on retracted statements without sufficient corroborative evidence. The appeal was allowed, the Impugned Order was set aside, and the penalty amount deposited by the appellant was to be refunded within three months.