9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n India, transferred a total amount of US $10,500 from his accounts in Hongkong to a person in USA, thereby contravening the provisions of section 8(1) of the Act. The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of pre-deposit in compliance with the directions made by this Board on 19-8-1996 while disposing of his dispensation application. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The appellant was proceeded against under section 51 of the Act in pursuance of a show-cause notice dated 8-2-1995 under which he was charged for contravention of sections 8(1), 14, 25, 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Act. However, during the adjudication proceedings, the learned Adjudicating Officer exonerated him of all other charges as not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1991 for his stay in USA on 30 years mortgage loan, of his social security number issued by the Department of Health Human Service of Social Security Administration, of his identification number issued by the State of Maryland, USA, of his driving licence issued in November 1991 with validity till May 1995, of several credit cards issued by various agencies in the USA. 5. Shri Fernandez further submitted that in respect of his business in Hongkong, the appellant had furnished evidence of the registration of his business in the name of Hongkong Exchange and Couriers which was registered on 23-3-1993 by the Hongkong Government. Shri Fernandez submitted that the learned Adjudicating Officer has misled himself by observing that the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uate to show that the appellant continued to engage himself in business outside India and there is no evidence that he returned to India for good for carrying on any business or vocation in India. The fact that he got a business concern registered in Hongkong in March 1993 is adequate proof that he did not intend to return to India for good. Even the fact that the amount transferred was towards payment of rent and remuneration of his employee itself is a proof that he continued to carry on business in the USA. In view thereof, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant did not cease to be a person resident outside India during the relevant time and, therefore, the charge of contravention of section 8(1) as allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
