9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the second appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Advocate, made a prayer at the outset for substituting the names of legal representatives of the appellant since the appellant is no more alive. She has filed an affidavit giving the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Dr. Shamsuddin has no objection to the substitution of legal representatives of the appellant since deceased, as under : 1. V.S. Lalitha Ramakrishnan, W/o late K.S. Ramakrishnan aged 49, residing at Anitha Bhavan, Karakkamuri Cross Road, Cochin-II, Kerala State. 2. R.R. Roshy S/o late K.S. Ramakrishnan aged 30, residing at Anitha Bhavan, Karakkamuri Cross Road, Cochin-II, Kerala State. 3. K.R. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the counsel appearing for the appellant before the High Court has informed her that the High Court has clarified that the appeals are to be heard on merits without pre-deposit of the amount of penalty. She has promised to file a copy of the clarification made by the High Court which she expects to receive in a day or two. However, I decided to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, without awaiting the formal clarification made by the Hon'ble High Court as I have no doubt in my mind that directions contained in the said order of the Hon'ble High Court are intended to be that the Board should dispose of the appeal on merits without requiring the pre-deposit. Any other reading of the High Court's order would amount to rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the nature of an evidence and for that reason, it was not necessary for the appellant to retract the same. As regards the statement of 18-11-1985, it was retracted by the appellant on 22-11-1985 itself and cannot be said to be belated one. Ms. Prasad further submitted that the learned Adjudicating Officer mis-directed himself on facts in giving the finding that the statement is corroborated by evidence available on record although in replies to the show-cause notices as well as during the personal hearing, it was clearly brought out on behalf of the appellant that the customs papers seized by the department clearly disprove the allegation that the said costly items, such as, T.V. Sets, VCRs., cooking range, etc., were brought by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad pleaded that the department tried to build up the false story of borrowing of US $ 20,000 by the appellant while he and his family were on visit to Singapore and that he paid Rs. 20,000 to Ms. K.V. Sudha when she came to India. The learned Adjudicating Officer has himself recorded that the appellant, his wife and three children went to Singapore after availing of the FTS facility and that amount was sufficient for them for the visits as they were to stay with their relative in Singapore. The learned Adjudicating Officer has relied on the appellant's statement that he spent the amount allegedly borrowed from Ms. K.V. Sudha towards payment of hotel bills and purchase of expensive items, such as, two sets of VCRs, two sets of TVs, cooki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily from their visit to Singapore. In the circumstances, the suspicion or inference that the appellant would have borrowed a sum of US $ 20,000 from Ms. K.V. Sudha in Singapore would not stand in the face of the seized customs papers in respect of those items. The learned Adjudicating Officer ought to have kept in mind the distinction between the admissibility of an evidence and its relevancy and weightage. 11. In the result, I am not inclined to sustain the finding of contravention of section 8(1) as alleged in SCN HI. The question of contravention of section 14 as alleged in SCN II, therefore, does not arise at all. The finding of contravention of section 9(1)(a) also cannot be sustained as there is no evidence that the appellant paid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the appellants had taken loan on these very conditions, viz,, that the loan would be repaid in India in Indian currency without payment of any interest. In the circumstances, Ms. Prasad submitted the requirement of seeking per mission of the RBI was a mere legal formality and the alleged contravention is only a technical one deserving no more than a token penalty. Dr. Shamsuddin opposed the reduction of penalty by making the submission that the penalty imposed by the learned Adjudicating Officer cannot be said to be excessive. 14. In my opinion Ms. Prasad has adequately made out a case for reduction of penalties for the leasons adduced by her. It cannot be disputed that the appellants' action, though violative of the law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
