9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 57 - HC - FEMAReceipt of payment Non-Resident External ( NRE ) Account from Smt. Sarita Mediratta resident of UK - Making payment to Shri Sunil Narang, a resident of Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on behalf of Smt. Sarita Mediratta - Penalty for Violation of FERA - Held that - the evidence that has come on record that there is nothing to show that the Appellant made payment of Rs.5.25 lakhs in lieu/as compensation for to the credit of Shri Sunil Narang on behalf of Smt. Mediratta. Neither Shri Hari Ram Aggarwal nor Shri Sunil Narang appears to have any nexus with the Appellant as such. He is not shown to have entered into any transaction with R.K. Verma, an NRI whose name finds mention in the adjudication order. The key element for finding that the Appellant violated Section 9 (1) (d) read with Section 64 (2) FERA is missing in the present case. The statement of Shri Narang regarding arranging the NRE draft from his sister s account does not by any mean implicate the Appellant Suresh Kejriwal. The facts concerning Shri Narang, Shri Aggarwal and their transactions, if any, with Smt. Mediratta cannot be stated to be within the personal knowledge of the Appellant. The so-called admission statement of the Appellant, which was retracted by him, could not be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration. - Appeal allowed - Decided in favor of appellants.
Issues:
Violation of Section 9(1)(d) of FERA - Appellant receiving payment from NRE Account and making payment on behalf of person resident outside India without RBI exemption. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal (AT) confirming the adjudication order of the Assistant Director (AD), Enforcement Directorate (ED), holding the Appellant guilty of contravening Section 9(1)(d) of FERA and imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000. 2. The show cause notice alleged that the Appellant received a payment from a Non-Resident External (NRE) Account and made a payment on behalf of a person resident outside India without RBI exemption, contravening FERA. The Appellant denied the allegations, stating the payment method was prescribed under FERA. 3. The AD relied on statements of individuals implicating the Appellant, despite the Appellant's denial and retraction. The Appellant was found guilty based on statements admitting to transactions, which were deemed authentic. 4. The AT directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.10,000 for appeal, and in the impugned order, upheld the guilt based on corroborated statements, invoking legal provisions regarding gifting and burden of proof. 5. The High Court analyzed statements of witnesses, finding no direct evidence linking the Appellant to the alleged violations. The Court emphasized the lack of nexus between the Appellant and the individuals involved, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant was not proven guilty of the violation. 6. The Court held that the key element for establishing the Appellant's violation was missing, as statements did not incriminate the Appellant. The reliance on the retracted admission statement without independent corroboration was deemed insufficient. 7. Consequently, the Court set aside the adjudication order and the impugned order, directing the refund of any deposited amount with interest to the Appellant, as there was no material to support the Appellant's guilt of violating Section 9(1)(d) of FERA. 8. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence to establish the Appellant's culpability, leading to the reversal of the lower authorities' decisions.
|
