9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exchange other than those prescribed by RBI. This is a very old appeal of the year 1994 where appellant appeared on the last date of hearing i.e., on 1-5-2006 where service of notice of hearing was served on him by affixation where time was sought by staff of advocate Shri T. Harish Kumar on behalf of the appellant and the matter was adjourned but again the appellant did not appear on the date fixed for hearing and it appears that the appellant is not interested in contesting his appeal and wants to unnecessarily delay the proceedings but he should not be permitted to do so. The proceedings are allowed to proceed ex parte. Presently, the appeal is taken up for final disposal after hearing the arguments of DLA. 3. In brief the facts again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where Thiagarajan paid him an amount of Rs. 1,25,500 for purchase of foreign exchange for which he purchased SRs 31000 and sold the same to Thiagarajan and N. Rangasamy made payment of Rs. 1,21,500 to the appellant for which he purchased Frs. 30,000 and paid the same to Shri R. Rangasamy for profits. He admitted that on 6-9-1990 Thiagarajan came to his residence with the said foreign exchange Frs. 61,000 in order to ascertain the time of their departure by a van from Thuraiyur to Mumbai on 7-9-1990 and at that time only the foreign exchange was seized from him. The appellant was charged for contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) of FER Act and was penalized against which this appeal is preferred. It has been alleged in the memo of appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arajan who was present in his accommodation at the time of search. The appellant has not denied his acquaintance with Thiagarajan and hence there is no reason not rely on the statement of Thiagarajan whereby the confessional statement of appellant has been fully corroborated about sale and purchase of foreign exchange by Shri Thiagarajan. 6. So far as the retraction of confessional statement is concerned it is merely a bald assertion whereby no evidence has been produced by the appellant in support of his case. In KTMS Mohd. v. Union of India [1992] 3 SCC 182 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that it is only for the maker of statement who alleges inducement threat, coercion, etc., to establish that such improper means had been adopt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
