9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for receiving amounts from a non-resident brother. Analysis: The appellant was penalized for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for receiving Rs. 44,000 from his non-resident brother in India. The appellant acknowledged receiving the amount but explained that it was for his brother's family expenses during their visits to India. He argued that the funds were sent through proper banking channels and requested the department to investigate the source of the drafts to verify if they were sent by his brother or others. The appellant maintained that he disclosed all relevant information and did not knowingly contravene any provision. The appellant contended that he lacked knowledge of any contravention and pleaded for exoneration. He also highlighted the financial burden of pre-depositing the penalty. The adjudicating authority considered the submissions and the respondent's argument supporting the contravention finding for the amount credited through drafts originating in India. However, the respondent agreed to waive the pre-deposit requirement due to the small amount involved and no further arguments to present. The Chairman noted the necessity for the department to investigate the draft origins to determine if they were obtained from foreign currency conversion by the brother or others, along with any corresponding remittance. The Chairman observed the periodic and varying amounts sent over the years, suggesting compliance with exchange regulations. Insufficient evidence existed to establish a violation of section 9(1)(b) by the appellant, especially considering the brother's past legitimate fund transfers through proper channels. Consequently, the Chairman found the evidence insufficient to uphold the charge against the appellant and granted the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was set aside, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to support the contravention charge under section 9(1)(b) against the appellant.
|
