9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 for want of prosecution. 2. Imposition of penalty for violation of provisions of FERA. 3. Evidence and arguments presented by both parties. 4. Consideration of retracted statements and corroborating evidence. 5. Interpretation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA. 6. Impact of judgment in a criminal case on the penalty imposition. Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 for want of prosecution: The judgment states that appeal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 were pending since 1992, with no representation on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution, and the focus shifted to the facts of appeal No. 91/1992. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty for violation of provisions of FERA: The case involved an appeal against an order imposing penalties under FERA for violations of specific provisions. The penalties were imposed based on actions related to the receipt of instructions from abroad and subsequent financial transactions, leading to searches and seizures at various premises. The Adjudicating Authority found the appellant guilty and levied penalties, which were challenged in the present appeal. Issue 3: Evidence and arguments presented by both parties: The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, acquitted in a criminal case related to the same violations, should not face penalties. They also contested the lack of evidence regarding the alleged non-resident individual involved in the transactions. The respondent's representative, however, supported the penalties based on corroborating evidence from statements and financial recoveries. Issue 4: Consideration of retracted statements and corroborating evidence: The judgment highlighted the reliance on retracted statements of involved parties, including the appellant, in imposing penalties. The presence of recovered funds and statements from individuals like Shri K.K. Jamaluddin and the appellant's wife was used to support the penalty imposition. Issue 5: Interpretation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA: The judgment discussed the provisions of FERA that prohibit certain financial transactions with non-residents. It emphasized the need for evidence to establish violations and the importance of considering the appellant's business records in the context of the alleged transactions. Issue 6: Impact of judgment in a criminal case on the penalty imposition: The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant's acquittal in a criminal case related to the same violations should prevent penalty imposition. They also contested the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant to the alleged transactions. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order and dismissing other related appeals. This detailed analysis covers the dismissal of appeals, penalty imposition, evidence and arguments, consideration of statements and evidence, interpretation of FERA provisions, and the impact of a criminal case judgment on penalty imposition.
|
