9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Adjudication Order imposing penalty and confiscation under FER Act for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) - Dispensation of pre-deposit - Evidentiary value of confessional statements - Retraction of confession - Legal scrutiny of confessional statement of co-accused - Contemporary evidence of foreign currency advancement. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal challenging an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty and confiscation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act for contravention of specific sections. The appellant contested the order, citing a delay of over 10 years in deciding on the dispensation of pre-deposit. The Tribunal deemed this lapse as grounds for dispensation and proceeded to evaluate the appeal on its merits. Two Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant, alleging contravention of FER Act provisions based on various documents and statements from individuals. The appellant denied the allegations, leading to the adjudication proceedings and the subsequent impugned order. The admitted facts included the apprehension of an individual with Indian currency and documents, implicating the appellant in receiving and making payments on behalf of a person in Dubai. The appellant's counsel argued against the evidentiary value of confessional statements, contending that statements made under duress or threat should be disregarded. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of duress or torture and referenced Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the voluntary nature of statements for admissibility. Regarding the retracted confession, the Tribunal referred to another Supreme Court ruling, highlighting that retracted confessions can be relied upon if found voluntary and true, especially when corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the confession was deemed corroborated by recovered documents, making it acceptable. The appellant's arguments against relying on co-accused confessions were dismissed, as the FER proceedings are not governed by the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to prescribed procedures and rejected the appellant's contentions, stating that the confessions were admissible. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed affidavits from individuals claiming to have advanced foreign currency to the appellant, noting their lack of contemporaneity and probative value. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected, affirming the adjudication order and directing the appellant to deposit the penalty amount within a specified timeframe.
|
