9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having unauthorisedly sold foreign exchange. The above- mentioned foreign exchange as well as Indian currency of Rs. 60,000 being the amount involved in the unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange was ordered to be confiscated to the Central Government under section 63 of the Act. 2. This appeal came up for hearing in Bangalore camp on 27-6-2005. The appellant was neither present nor represented. Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA represented the respondent. The appellant has already filed written submissions which are taken on record. This is an old appeal of 1999. Long lapse of time coupled with confiscations of various amounts of foreign exchange mentioned in the said order as well confiscation of Rs. 60,000 justifies the full dispensation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. I have carefully examined the pleadings as well as the written submissions made on behalf of the appellant. It has been contended by the appellant that the adjudication order is based on the statement recorded on 31-3-1998 and 1-4-1998 which had been retracted. Therefore, no reliance can be made on said statements as the appellant was kept in custody by the officers of Enforcement Directorate on 31-3-1998 and 1-4-1998. It is also contended that the appellant had retracted his statement dated 31-3-1998 and 1-4-1998 by means of an affidavit. It is evident from the record that claim of retraction of the statements dated 31-3-1998 and 1-4-1998 was considered by the adjudicating authority who has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s statements is without any basis and is liable to be rejected. 6. On the other hand it has been contended by Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA that statement of the appellant has been corroborated and supported by the seizure of foreign currency and appellant has failed to discharge the presumption under section 71(3) of the Act for having foreign exchange exceeding to equivalent to Rs. 1,500. I feel there is substance in the argument of Dr. Shamsuddin. The appellant has miserably failed to discharge his burden of proof under section 71(3) of the Act. Appellant then contended that confessional statement was obtained under duress and coercion. It is evident that appellant has failed to establish allegation that any such improper mean has been adopted. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
