9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revision petition filed against order exonerating respondents for contravention of FERA sections. 2. Proper appreciation of evidence by Adjudicating Authority. 3. Delay in filing revision petition. 4. Scope of revisional powers and reasonableness of delay. 5. Exoneration of respondents based on lack of evidence except retracted statement. 6. Imposition of penalty for violation of FERA Section 9(1)(a) without show cause notice. Analysis: 1. The revision petition was filed against an order exonerating the respondents for contravention of Sections 8(2), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), and 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA. The case involved the use of NRE accounts for making payments as gifts to unrelated persons, leading to a search and recovery of foreign exchange. The Adjudicating Authority exonerated the respondents based on the evidence presented, which was challenged in the revision. 2. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not properly appreciate the evidence on record, especially regarding the violation of Section 9(1)(a) of FERA. However, the respondent argued that the revision petition should be dismissed due to delay and latches. The Tribunal can interfere in revisional powers only in exceptional cases of manifest mistake or error of law, not for re-appreciation of evidence. 3. The delay in filing the revision petition was a crucial issue raised during the proceedings. The respondent highlighted that the revision was filed after approximately 11 months without any explanation for the delay. The Tribunal considered the reasonableness of the delay, citing precedents that emphasize timely administrative actions. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of revisional powers and the reasonableness of the delay in this case. It was noted that revisional powers can only be exercised in cases of manifest error by the Adjudicating Authority. The lack of a prescribed limitation for filing a revision under FERA does not justify an unreasonable delay, as equitable considerations are essential. 5. The Adjudicating Authority exonerated the respondents primarily due to the absence of substantial evidence apart from a retracted statement. Although the Authority found violations of Section 9(1)(a) of FERA, no penalty was imposed as the show cause notice did not specifically include allegations related to that section. The Tribunal upheld the Authority's decision, stating that the absence of relevant charges in the notice precluded the imposition of penalties. 6. The issue of imposing a penalty for the violation of FERA Section 9(1)(a) without a show cause notice specifically addressing that charge was a significant point of contention. The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was not erroneous, as penalties cannot be imposed in the absence of relevant charges in the show cause notice. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
|
