9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Plastics Ltd., UK - penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority for violation of provisions of Sections 14(a) and 18(1) against show cause notice no. 2 is solely based on the retracted statement - Therefore, penalty imposed is not sustainable - However, The penalty of Rs. 50,000/-imposed for acknowledging on the date in favour of M/s. Tewin Plastics Ltd., UK is set aside while remaining part of the order is maintainable - Decided partly in favour of appellant. - 328/1994 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2011 - Subhash Samvatsar, J. Shri L.P. Ashtana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sonali Bhade, ALA, for the Respondent. ORDER The following order is delivered by Justice Subhash Samvatsar, Chairperson, Appellate Tribunal for Foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice was issued for contravention of Section 9(1)(c) for acknowledging a debt of USD 2398.7 to M/s. Tewin Plastics Ltd., UK a person resided out of India. The Adjudicating Authority found appellant contravention Section 9(1)(c) and imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on this appeal. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is solely based on the statement of the appellant, recorded on 21-2-1991 and 22-2-1991, which were retracted by him immediately. He further contented that even he had admitted his liability to pay US 23987.25 to M/s. Tewin Plastics Ltd., UK in his statement recorded by the Director of Enforcement is not an acknowledgement of debt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority for violation of provisions of Sections 14(a) and 18(1) against show cause notice no. 2 is solely based on the retracted statement. Hence the imposition of penalty to that extent is maintainable. 8. The third show cause notice is issued to the appellant for violation of Section 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(e) alleging that he has made payment of USD 35,000 to M/s. S.A. Expressions Perfumes. This fact is also corroborative by the letter of Shri Andre Garavagno dated 12-1-1991 and the other documents recovered from the appellant. In such circumstances, the penalty imposed against third show cause notice can also not be interfered with. 9. Hence this appeal is allowed in part. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/-imposed for acknowledging on the date i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
