9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found guilty of the charge and so was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 by virtue of the impugned orders. 2. The charge against the appellant as per the show-cause notice was that during 1995-96, he being a person resident in India, without any exemption from the RBI, had received various payments totalling to Rs. 73,50,000 from persons in India otherwise than through authorized dealers in foreign exchange, the amounts being the sale proceeds of four cars by order or on behalf of his brother-in-law one Abdul Kareem, an Indian citizen resident outside India in Sharjah and so had contravened the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the Act. The amounts so received in respect of the cars, according to the Directorate of Enforcement, was Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile 80 per cent of the penalty amounts was waived for pre-deposit; thereafter, it was reported on behalf of the appellant that the amounts ordered for pre-deposit was already deposited. 4. The only point arises for decision is whether there is any illegality or impropriety vitiating the impugned findings and orders of penalty calling for any intervention by this Forum. 5. Both sides entered appearance through counsel. I have heard the counsel for appellant and also Ld. DLA Mr. Gadoo. I have also perused the entire records. 6.The point: According to the appellant, the investigation was mainly conducted by the Central Excise officers of Coimbatore and not under the provisions of the Act (FERA); it is also alleged in the memorandum of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered all the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The submissions of the Ld. DLA, Mr. Gadoo, also were duly considered. According to the appellant, the residential status of Abdul Kareem who is none other than the brother-in-law of this appellant was not approved by the prosecution; admittedly, this appellant is Abdul Kareem's sister's husband; obviously, sale of all the four imported cars in the names of non-resident Indians on transfer residence visa were got cleared at the Port and ultimately the cars were sold and amounts came by draft/cash to this appellant. The documents received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Bangalore, at whose instance and investigation the violation of ITC regulations in the import and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he had purchased a Mercedes Benz car imported in the name of Rayammakkar Veetil Mamu on behalf of the South Indian Tourist Home and that this appellant had made the entire dealings regarding the sale of the car and that the car was seized by the Central Excise, Coimbatore on 20-2-1997. In the statement of R.K. Mamu in respect of the aforesaid Mercedes Benz Car, he had clearly stated that all the formalities in respect of the import of the car was done by Abdul Kareem who had a firm by name M/s. Friends Used Cars in Sharjah and that on his proposal to return to India, Kareem had told him that he would import the car into India on a commission of Rs. 40,000 and that the customs clearance of the vehicle would be effected at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the name of Mamu and sold to M/s. South Indian Tourist Home, Coimbatore. As regards the documents seized from his residence and shop on 16-10-1996 relating to the import of the cars mentioned in the Mahazar and the blank forms for sale/registration of the cars, he has stated that these were kept for the purpose of registration of the vehicles. It was on account of the evidence born out by the aforesaid documents and admissions in the statements of the various witnesses and of this appellant that the Adjudicating Officer had found the appellant guilty of the charge. Though much has been argued on behalf of the appellant regarding the materials relied on by the Adjudicating Officer, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiny of the entire materials on record including the impugned findings, I find no merits in the appellant's plea that the findings are vitiated by any illegality or infirmity. The Adjudicating Officer had rightly found this appellant guilty of the charge of violation of section 9(1)(b) of the Act; as such the findings are only to be sustained. 9. As on the question of penalty, the counsel for the appellant submits for a lenient view; the impugned order itself is clear on the aspect that the Adjudicating Officer had invoked leniency on the question of penalty; still considering the aspect of mens rea, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,50,000 and so the impugned orders stand modified to that effect. 10. In the above premises, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
