9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted about the details of the account at New York sent by Baghubhai to him. The payment of U.S. $ 38,000 is said to have been made on the instruction of the appellant who approached him on 16th or 17th July 1996. He required an amount of U.S. $ 38,000 outside India. He then contacted Baghubhai in London who asked him to hand over an amount of 14,82,000/- to Mahendrabhai which was collected from Amit Shah on 18th July. The order does not contain a reference of statement of Mahendrabhai or anyone other than Sudhir Kapadia said to have retracted his statement. The fax message does not make a reference of the appellant. Thus, we do not find any material to show involvement of the appellant other than the statement of Sudhir Kapadia. When Sudhir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was initiated against Sudhir Kapadia and the appellant for contravention of section 9 (1) (f) (i) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short, the Act of 1973). 3. The statement of the appellant was recorded on 17th August, 1996. The show cause notice was thereupon served on 25th July, 1997 to the appellant to show cause as to why the adjudication proceedings shall not be held against him under section 51 of the Act of 1973. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice denying all the allegations made against him. The appellant even approached the respondents with a request to supply documents and material on the basis of which show cause notice has been framed. The appellant was not supplied any documents. However, by the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross examination. 7. In view of the above, even principle of natural justice was violated. It is also submitted that the documentary evidence on record was also not showing involvement of the appellant, rather oral statement used against the appellant was going contrary to the documentary evidence. It could not be shown that 38,000 US $ were actually remitted by Baghubhai of London to Sh. Rangasamie and otherwise it does not contain the name of the appellant. In fact, no incriminating material was available to show involvement of the appellant, yet the impugned order has been passed. The prayer is to set aside the order and for that the counsel for the appellant relied on the judgement of the Apex court in the case of Vinod Solanki Vs. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e named Baghubhai for the payment of 38,000 US$ on the instruction of appellant, Amit Shah. Shri Sudhir Kapadia contacted Baghubhai of London who asked him to hand over an amount of Rs. 14,82,000/- to Mahendrabhai and he collected the said amount from Amit Shah on 18th July from his office. The fax message was transmitted on 18th/ 19th July and subsequently it was confirmed by Baghubhai. 13. The appellant however chose to deny his involvement in the transaction which would be very obvious but statement of Sudhir Kapadia was sufficient to establish involvement of the appellant for contravention of section of 9 (1) (f) (i) of the Act of 1973. The penalty of Rs. 3 lakh was reasonably imposed upon the appellant. The counsel for the respondent f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd over the amount of Rs.14,82,000 to Sh.Mahendrabhai; that he collected the said amount from Amit Shah on 18th July from his office; that the said fax message was ATTN. : BHAGU BHAI MR.RANGASAMIE R.B. VA CHA LAM MONTE DE PASCHI DI SIENA A/c 13683 CHRRARA BRANCH CORRESPONDING BANK CHASE MANHATTAN P.Q.BQX 2041 NOW YORK - 100 081. transmitted the said Sh.Bhagubhai around 18/19th July subsequently it was confirmed by Bhagubhai. If Sh. Amit Shah has chosen to deny his involvement in this transaction, it is quite obvious. But then, the evidence discussed above is enough to bring home the charge. 15. The order extracted above is in reference to the appellant. Other than the discussion referred to above, no part of the order pertains to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
