9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 590 - HC - FEMARemittance out of India without having imported any goods on the basis of the forged bogus documents. - allegation based on statement - held that - the Adjudicating authority has in her order very clearly rerecorded as a fact that there is no retraction on record. In case, there has been any retraction the appellant would have challenged the same and produced the retraction before the Tribunal or called upon the respondents to produce the retraction which according to him was in possession of the respondent. However, no such exercise or even an attempt to the same appears to have been carried out before the Tribunal. Order of tribunal directing the appellant to pre deposit 50% of the penalty amount i.e. Rs. 25 lacs out of Rs. 50 lacs imposed by the Adjudicating authority sustained.
Issues:
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty imposed for violation of FERA to entertain the appeal on merits. Analysis: The case involved the appellant remitting a substantial amount outside India without genuine imports, based on forged documents. The appellant's statement detailed the modus operandi behind the illegal remittances, implicating the appellant in orchestrating the scheme through fictitious firms and bank accounts. The Adjudicating authority found no genuine imports, concluding a violation of FERA provisions. The appellant failed to demonstrate financial hardship or retract the incriminating statement during the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that the case relied solely on the unretracted statement, but failed to produce evidence of retraction before the authorities. The court noted that the Adjudicating authority had recorded no retraction, and the appellant did not challenge this fact or provide the alleged retraction to the Tribunal. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's order for the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty for the appeal to proceed on merits, extending the deposit deadline by eight weeks. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of the pre-deposit for hearing the appeal on merits. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
