9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(b) and 9(1)(d ) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to the extent of Rs. 2,30,000. The Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000 was recovered from the custody of the co-noticee A.V. Moidunny which was confiscated under the impugned order in terms of section 63 of the FER Act. The appellant is neither present nor represented. A report is submitted by Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate for the respondent indicating service of notice on the appellant by personal service. The appellant has made payment of full amount of penalty of Rs. 69,500. This is a very old appeal of the year 1995 where having no option this appeal is taken up for final disposal on the basis of material available on record. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stopped by police and on his search the currency and the chit were recovered by the police and seized. 4. On the basis of information made available by A.V. Moidunny, the appellant M.A. Moidu was located and identified and examined under section 40 of the FER Act on dated 3-6-1992 who also admitted having made payment of Rs. 1,80,000 to A.V. Moidunny and also transaction of Rs. 50,000 where payment of the said amount was made by A.V. Moidunny to Kunhammed on instructions from abroad. 5. It is submitted in the Memo of Appeal that the confessional statements made by the appellant and A.V. Moidunny were not voluntary and obtained under undue influence and coercion. The appellant did not receive or make any payments. The statement of K.K. Kunh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve received such payment otherwise than through an authorised dealer; ( d ) make any payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India; 7. Thus as per statutory scheme contained in section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the FERA, no person shall receive or make any payment otherwise through an authorised dealer by order of a person resident outside India without the permission of RBI. In the instant case, the appellant retracted his confessional statement but the burden of proving the fact that the statement was recorded under threat and coercion was on the appellant himself which he has not been able to discharge for want of evidence. 8. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in KTMS Mohd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich reflects correct facts. The confessional statement of the appellant is fully supported by the circumstantial evidence of the case particularly when it was not denied that his brother Ismail was a person resident outside India. 11. Thus having considered the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has rightly been held guilty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the FER Act. Now coming to the question of quantum of penalty, I am of the view that it is not excessive and commensurate to the gravity of the amount involved. The impugned order withstands judicial scrutiny which is liable to be confirmed and upheld. The appeal is liable to be dismissed having no merits. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
