9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 3-6-1992. It was considered appropriate to decide the case on the basis of the records after hearing ex parte arguments of the counsel for the respondent. 3. These appeals arise out of the adjudication order No. SDE(RS)IV/ 13-16/86 dated 30-4-1986, whereby total penalties of Rs. 17,000 and of Rs. 3,000 were imposed on Dr. Rajaram Sriram and Smt. Vidya Rajaram, respectively for contravening section 19(1)(e) and section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') on different counts. 4. Four show-cause notices were issued to the appellants levelling the following charges against them: (a) SCN. I - Dr. Rajaram Sriram and Smt. Vidya Rajaram (Indian citizens) who returned to India from U.S.A. and became persons reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of his becoming owner thereof, and that he also owned US $1,260, being the amount available with him in the shape of TCs for US $1,000 and US $260 in currency notes, and failed to offer the same or cause it to be offered for sale to an authorised dealer in foreign exchange in India within three months, and thereby contravented section 14. 5. The main grounds mentioned in the memoranda of appeal, on the basis of which the impugned order has been challenged, are that the appellants were not resident in India and have thus not violated any of the provisions of the Act; that the Adjudicating Officer has overlooked the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IV). 7. As regards SCN. III the Adjudicating Officer, however, did not find the appellant Smt. Vidya Rajaram guilty of contravention of section 14 in respect of the amount of US $23,825.66 lying to her credit with Retirement Plan Account, Commonwealth of Massachusette, as he found that that amount would become payable only on her attaining the age of 65 years and as such, she did not own the same. 8. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions/contentions of the parties. A perusal of the records indicates that there is no dispute about the relevant facts concerning the factum of holding the securities/the amounts, in issue by the appellants as mentioned in the SCNs, excepting the fact relating to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
