APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE
R.N. Poddar, O.P. Nahar, JJ.
Subhash Chandra Gadia -Appellant
Versus
Director, Enforcement Directorate -Respondent
Appeal No. 55 of 1990
Decided On : 08-08-2008
1. This order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson.
2. This is an appeal filed against Adjudication Order No. ADM/SDE/147 TO 152/B/UPS/89/4846 dated 29th September, 1989 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 totaling to Rs. 14,00,000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(e), a penalty of Rs. 16,50,000 for contravention of 9(1)(f)(i) and a penalty of Rs. 1,45,000 for contravention of Section 8(1) FER Act, 1973, on the reasons that the appellant as resident of India, (1) made payment of US dollars 99539.60 and Singapore dollar 762 to different persons without any general or special permission from RBI and holding JCP bonds of US dollars 10000even after acquiring the status of a person resident in India, (2) received payment of Rs. 16,26,500 as consideration and in lieu of payment of US dollars 75000 and Singapore dollar 61663.40 ; and (3) unauthorisedly acquired US dollars 62790 and Japanese Yen 7236950 and further failed to surrender the same to authorized dealer within a period of three months from the date he arrived in India.
3. The application for dispensation of pre-deposit is disposed off by FERA Board by order dated 29.10.1991 allowing the appellant to make pre-deposit of a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000. The appellant complied with this pre-deposit order. Presently, this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits.
4. The following five Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants asking them to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him :-
(a) No. T-4/36-B/86-(SCN-IV) dated 31.10.1986 alleged that the appellant firstly otherwise acquired and thereafter transferred US dollars 62,793 to the bank account of M/s Greenland Corporation. Japan, maintained in Bank of Credit and Commercial International Hongkong, which amount the appellant failed to offer for sale within three months from the date of his return in April, 1984, to India in violation of Section 8(1) FER Act, 1973.
(b) No. T-4/36-B/86-(SCN-V) dated 31.10.1986 alleged that the appellant after returning to India in April 1984, acquired the status of resident in India but maintained account with M/s Greenland Corporatin where Japanese Yen 7236950 is debited which the appellant otherwise acquired without any permission from RBI. Further, the appellant failed to surrender Japanese Yen 7236950 and US dollars 20,000 to the authorized banker within three months from the date of his return to India in April, 1984, in violation of Section 8(1) FER Act, 1973.
(c) No. T-4/36-B/86-(SCN-VI) dated 31.10.1986 alleged that the appellant made payment of US dollars 99939.60 and Singapore dollars 7620 to different persons outside India without any permission from RBI as value or commission of the imported goods in violation of Section 9(1)(d) FER Act, 1973.
(d) No. T-4/36-B/86-(SCN-VII) dated 31.10.1986 alleged that the appellant received Rs. 1,62,655 in consideration and in lieu of receipt of foreign currency of US dollars 75000 and Singapore dollar 61663.40 from persons resident outside India in violation of Section 9(1)(f)(i) FER Act, 1973.
(e) No.T-4/36-B/86-(SCN-VIII) dated 31.10.1986 alleged that appellant continued to hold JCP Bond of US dollars 19000 - ever after his arrival in India without any permission from RBI in contravention of Section 19(1)(e) FER Act, 1973.
The appellant did not file a reply despite on his known address, hence, the adjudication proceedings were held and the impugned order is passed.
5. Ld. Counsel Shri R.K. Handoo, Advocate, argued that the appellant's flat was searched on 29.6.1985 by DRI under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, when certain documents are recovered and seized. Thereafter, the appellant's statement was recorded on 29.6.1985 by Customs Department, which had been subsequently retracted by letter dated 8.7.1985. Though Enforcement Directorate also recorded
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.