9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g towards Bangladesh. Shri Haldar was apprehended and 40,000 (forty thousand) US Dollar (Equivalent to Rs. 25,88,000/-) was recovered from his possession. On demand he could not produce any valid documents for licit possession of the same US Dollar. On 21.08.2005 the BSF personnel handed over Shri Haldar with the said US Dollar and the Customs Officers of Petrapole seized the same on the reasonable belief that the same was clandestinely attempted to be exported in illicit manner in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the CA read with Section 3(2) of (Foreign Trade Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR) Sections 3 & 4 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). Shri Haldar was arrested as the value of seizure exceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was in the office of M/s. Tarafdar Enterprise. I also find that Shri Tarafdar in his statements before the Customs officers also echoed the statement of Shri Haldar though there was some mismatch which is not of much significance and relevance. Shri Tarafdar maintained that foreign currency purchased by him usually is taken to his residence for sake of safety and the seized foreign currency was purchased by him from bonafide passport holders after taking a copy of the same and was kept in his residence. As he was hospitalized, a copy of the Doctor s certificate was produced in this connection; the said currency which was legally acquired was not deposited with LNATPL within the stipulated time schedule. 7. I find that appellant Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assport number has been furnished and the Department has not caused any investigation whether any passengers from whom such dollars were purchased brought in more than US $ 5,000. In the absence of any evidence flowing out of investigations the charges of violation of RBI guidelines is not sustainable. 9. The Department alleged that the appellant could not establish the source from where he had procured such large sum of money i.e.25,88,000/- to acquire US dollar 400000 even though his normal business volume was in the range of USD 13000 to 3732 during the period from February 15 to July, 2015. I find that during the course of investigation the appellant Shri Tarafdar has produced two declarations showing that he had received loans of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
