9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 11-10-1993 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each under section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) each of FER Act, 1973 for having received Rs. 4.5 lakhs in the year 1992 from a local person on instruction of one Shri Seeni Mohd., resident outside India and for having made payments totalling to Rs. 4.5 lakhs to various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were recovered and seized and in his statement dated 24-6-1992 he stated that he was receiving and making payments of Indian currency on instruction of one Seeni Mohd. who was resident of Singapore and was receiving a commission of Rs. 1,000 for each payment of Rs. 1 lakh. In his statement he explained the documents recovered from his possession where as regards sheet No. 9 he explained that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... threat was on the appellant himself who has not been able to discharge his obligation. No evidence has been filed by the appellant on record to prove that any duress or threat was exercised against him and thus no inference can be drawn in his favour simply on the basis of bald statement. Moreover, retracted confessional statement may constitute substantial piece of evidence as it has been observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mself as well as by the statements of the recipients of Indian currency. The argument taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal about denying the opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses is liable to be rejected as the appellant has not given any explanation for justifying this right of cross-examination where otherwise the charges levelled against him stand fully proved. I find no reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
