9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. The penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs has been imposed on each of appellants Manoj Kumar and Ashok Kumar. 2. A challenge to the order has been made mainly on the factual grounds. It is alleged that the appellants have contravened section 8(1) and 8(2) of FERA, 1973 and thus were liable for the action under section 50 of the FERA, 1973. The appellants were having US $ 3910, Pound 3185, Canadian Dollar 6175, UAE Dirhan 1000, Australian Dollar 1000, D.M. 750, Guilder 3185 & IMO for US Dollar 251 at the time of search. 3. They were found selling foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 80 lakhs out of the foreign exchange without the previous general or special permission of Reserve Bank of India. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as recovered was in the name of Madhu, w/o of his brother Ashok Kumar. It was further stated that seized foreign exchange was purchased by him 6 to 7 days back from a person who had come to their residence. They were knowing the person since long. He was engaged in sales and purchase of foreign exchange. 9. The documents seized from their house were containing details of their transaction in foreign exchange including the rates thereof. 10. The statement of Ashok Kumar was also recorded on 04.12.1992 where he admitted seizure of foreign exchange and Indian currency apart from documents from the premises. He refused to make any other statement in that regard. 11. The authority below had given ample opportunity to both the appellants to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered from the house in the name of Mrs. Madhu who is none else but the wife of appellant Ashok Kumar. The appellant Manoj Kumar in his statement admitted that seized foreign currency was purchased by them 6 to 7 days prior to the seizure from a person who deals in it. The other appellant Ashok Kumar also admitted that the foreign currency was seized from his own premises, but refused to make further statement. 16. In the light of the material available on the record, the Special Director found violation of section 8(1)and 8 (2) by the appellants and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs on each appellant under section 50 of the FERA, 1973. 17. If we go further deep into the matter, the documents seized from the appellants shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
