Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + SC FEMA - 1988 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (4) TMI 148 - SC - FEMAOrder of detention made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challneged Held that:- The learned Additional Solicitor General placed before us the grounds served on the petitioner, at some length, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner was running a business firm under the name and style of “M/s. B.N. Corporation” in Hong Kong as also offices in other places including Singapore and got certain business firms in India detailed therein registered in Nagaland under ‘farzi’ names and employed a number of persons who were acting at his behest. The role of the petitioner has been detailed in the grounds showing how he got illegally siphoned the foreign exchange to the tune of about 2 crores of rupees out of the country. The grounds also referred to the statements made by Sita Ram Aggarwal which indicated that the petitioner was travelling by air under assumed names and has been dodging the authorities when they attempted to contact him, before he was apprehended in a Calcutta hotel. It is further said that the petitioner’s firm M/s. B.N. Corporation of Hong Kong received remittances through bank worth ₹ 85-90 lacs during the year 1986 but did not supply or ship any goods for which the invoices were supposed to have been issued. Some of the documents are alleged to bear his signatures. The learned counsel is not correct in interpreting the observation of this Court relied upon by him as laying down a principle for general application. The Bench while considering the merits of the case before it, made the remark in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case before us, no such inference is permissible to be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Besides, according to the respondents, the bail application was as a matter of fact opposed. In any view of the matter, this factor is not of much consequence in the facts of the present case. In the result, both the writ application and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed.
|