9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the legality of the order dated 30-6-1996 whereby Addl. Director, Enforcement Chennai was pleased to impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for violation of section 8(1) of FERA. According to the charge it is alleged that the appellant was intercepted by the Customs authorities at Madras International Airport and from his possession foreign exchange of US $21950 and Pound 1000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got residence permission of Hongkong and was doing business there, the appellant s stay abroad cannot be held to be temporary and his status cannot be termed as a person resident in India. It was further submitted that retracted statement before the Customs authorities could not be used against the appellant. Shri Mahendra Singh counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant cannot be held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will apply to him if there is an alleged violation of the provisions of this section. Apart from the retraction and reply, no evidence has been brought forth to suggest that the foreign exchange seized from him was brought to India within the permissible limits during his several visits. A mere statement to this effect cannot be admitted as an evidence in defence. Moreover, even if for argument s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling, the Customs Authorities. It has been stated that the foreign exchange has been illegally acquired during his stay in India from brokers (not authorised) at Bangalore and was being taken out of India. Further, during the personal hearing, it was submitted that the foreign exchange seized from him by the Customs has been confiscated and the noticee has gone in appeal before the CEGAT against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
