9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereunder a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The foreign currency of US $1,200, Pounds Stg. 10 and Dirhams 100 seized from the business premises of the appellant has been ordered to be confiscated to the Government under section 63 of the Act. The allegation against the appellant is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -cause notice and the oral submissions made before him found all the allegations as not substantiated except in respect of the foreign currency seized from the business premises of the appellant. Thus, the allegation of dealings in foreign exchange of an amount of Rs. 27 lakhs, the Indian currency of Rs. 81,300 and Rs. 20,000 seized from the shop and residence of appellant, respectively, as the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign currency was in his lawful possession. In the circumstances and particularly since the appellant has not appeared in spite of the ex parte notice nor has he made any application seeking adjournment, I do not consider it just and proper to give another opportunity to the appellant and, therefore, I proceed ex parte. 4. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the grounds of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel during the adjudication proceedings. 5. On the ground at Serial No. 8, the appellant has challenged the imposition and quantum of penalty. The appellant has been found guilty of contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) which relates to illegal dealings in foreign exchange and as such his conduct is violative of the object of the Act. The fact that foreign currencies of different countries, viz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
