Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (12) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on instructions of Hameed, a person resident outside India. Appellant has made payment of the full amount of penalty where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Ms. Anjana Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA for the respondent and gone through the record, relevant Law and judicial pronouncements carefully. It is a follow up case where on an information received by officers of Enforcement Directorate against one Mohan Lal about his indulgence in Hawala payments, the search of his office premises, was conducted on 15.09.1998 whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from Mohanlal on instructions of a person, Hameed, resident outside India. The appellant was held guilty by the Adjudicating Officer where being aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by the appellant to set aside the impugned order. 4. The statement of Mohanlal was recorded by Enforcement Officers who explained the modus operandi of receiving the payment on instruction of Hameed, a person resident outside India and distributing it in India for which he was receiving commission from Hameed. The appellant was one of the persons who received an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 from Mohanlal in contravention of the provisions of FER Act, 1973. it is argued by Ld. Advocate Ms. Anjana Gupta that the Adjudicating Officer wrongly held the appellant guilt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, where any person in, or resident in, India receives any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India through any other person (including an authorised dealer) without a corresponding inward remittance from any place outside India, then, such person shall be deemed to have received such payment otherwise than through an authorised dealer; 6. Thus as per statutory scheme contained in Section 9(1)(b) of the FERA, no person shall receive any payment otherwise through an authorised dealer by order of a person resident outside India. In the instant case, from perusal of record, it is clear that the appellant was identified and located on the basis of information made available b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be relevant to mention the ruling of Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Chhabra v. UOI, 1997 SCC (Criminal) 272 where the Hon'ble Court observed that the customs officials were not police officials and the denial of cross examination of the witnesses was upheld by the court on the ground of the failure of the noticees to give any sufficient reason for the same. The Court observed that the denial of the cross examination under circumstances where reasons were not given, was not violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are not rigid and are not violated simply by refusal of cross examination. The appellant has not given any reason in his reply as to the cross examination of witnesses. Moreover, the pra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mes' or economic offences which tend to jeopardize national economy and national interest. The economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State should be brought to book. In these offences the proof beyond reasonable doubt is a criteria but not with mathematical precision. In this regard, it will be apt to mention observations of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormull AIR 1974 SC 859 in relation to smuggling of goods which are as under : ....the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Department. This is a fundamental rule relating to proof in all criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, where there is no statutory provision to the contrary; But in appreciating its scope and the natur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates