TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, Shri Niranjan J. Shah in his statement had admitted that he were not knowing the appellants. Thus there is a gift of 25,000/- US Dollars each to the four appellants by total strange person and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that present appellants must have paid a sum equivalent to 25,000/- US Dollars to their donee and, therefore, the violation of 9(l)(f(i) is clearly proved - Decided against Appellant. - 253-256/2002 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2011 - Subhash Samvatsar, J. Shri Madhu M. Patel, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant. Ms. Sonali Bhade, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER The following order is delivered by Justice Subhash Samvatsar, Chairperson, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough there is no specific provision for review under the Act, still review is maintainable as the order passed by the Tribunal is nullity. In support of this argument, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Sunitadevi Singhania v. Union of India - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 295 (S.C.). In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held the mistake committed by the Tribunal in not noticing the facts involved in the appeal would attract the ancillary and incidental powers of the Tribunal necessary to discharge its functions effectively. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court was dealing with the powers of the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962 in which there is a specific provision u/s. 129B for filing application for rectifications. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and give full protection to them from any action under the Income Tax Act or under the Foreign Exchange Act. Under the said Act even the source of foreign exchange brought by any persons in India could not be called in question. In such a situation no action against the present appellant could be taken for depositing the gift cheques of 25,000/- US Dollars each in the Bank of Baroda at Mumbai and their intact action to that extent was protected by the said Act. 7. However, the charge against the appellants is not only of depositing the bank drafts of 25,000/- US Dollars in India, but the second part of the charge is that the appellants has made a payment of equivalent amount to the person residing in out of India without general or spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its earlier judgments have come to the conclusion that in mere use of the word penalty are used u/s. 23(1)(a), FERA, the proceedings under the FERA are not criminal proceedings and are of civil nature. The provisions of determination of a breach act civil obligations this judgment were not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while deciding Shri Vinod Solanki's case. In such a situation, the provisions of FERA are not criminal proceedings but are for determination of breach of civil obligations and, therefore, the gravity of proof is not the same as that of criminal proceedings and the court can decide the cases on the basis of probabilities. 10. In the present case, the appellants have not disclosed their relationship with the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
