9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than mere handing over the foreign currency, no reason to interfere with the impugned order can arise. Cross-examination of witnesses - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal has considered the same and held that some of the witnesses had been offered for cross-examination and those not offered for cross-examination were not shown to have prejudiced the appellant in any manner - no fault in these fact can be found in not granting cross-examination of some of the witnesses. Statement made under duress and/or threat - Held that:- It has been recorded that there was no complaint made by the appellant when he was produced before the Magistrate. Besides holding that retraction of the statement by the appellant was an after though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Unit at Mumbai Airport on 8th January, 2006 while he was proceeding for security check after clearance by the immigration and the custom authorities which resulted in recovery of foreign currency equivalent to ₹ 1.59 crores. This led to proceeding against the appellant as well as the persons (Mr. Rajendra Bhutada and Smt. Bharti Bhutada), who had allegedly supplied the foreign currency to the appellant for carrying abroad. The Commissioner of Customs by order dated 22nd July, 2011 confiscated the foreign currency being prohibited goods under Section 113(d) and (h) of the Act and imposed penalty of ₹ 1.25 crores on Mr. Rajendra Bhutada, ₹ 25 lakhs on Smt. Bharti Bhutada and ₹ 50 lakhs upon the appellant herein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to each of them in illegal export of foreign currency. This is a finding of fact and in the absence of it being pointed out that the role of Smt. Bharati Bhutada was much more than mere handing over the foreign currency, no reason to interfere with the impugned order can arise. So far as non grant of cross-examination of witnesses are concerned, the impugned order of the Tribunal has considered the same and held that some of the witnesses had been offered for cross-examination and those not offered for cross-examination were not shown to have prejudiced the appellant in any manner. Thus, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Director of Enforcement (2013 TIOL 17 SC FEMA) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
