TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exports. Export transactions are apparent and they were done on behalf of A1 s firm with the involvement of A2. A3 as the Customs House Agent had helped in the documentation for exports and received huge amounts for his services. HELD THAT:- Learned Sessions Judge in appeal found that A2 was using cell phone of A3 and he has made payments to A3 by way of cheques. The said cheques are Exs.P18 to P21 in the name of A3 issued by A1 on behalf of M/s.Sai International. Since the cheques were encashed, the complicity of A3 in the transactions cannot be doubted. Such huge amounts cannot be towards services of a custom house agent. The fact remains that the acts of A1 to A3 failing to realize the default value of the export proceeds, having avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the very same day. A1 gave information regarding her customers and statement was recorded on the same day i.e., 20.02.2001. According to her statement, she went to Dubai shopping festival in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 by taking imitation jewellery and sarees. For the said purpose, A3, who is a Customs House Agent prepared necessary documentation. A2 in the case met A1 in Dubai (who is shown absconding) had offered that he would arrange for material from Hyderabad to be exported in the name of A1 s firm and promised to pay remuneration. A2 also promised that all other formalities including documentation etc., would be taken care of by him. 4. A2 procured material for export and G.R Forms were signed in blank by A1. A1 also gave blank ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas sub-section (3) is regarding the prosecution which is procedural in nature. Even according to the prosecution case, it was A2 who was the person who exported the goods and A1 cannot be made liable for any act of omission or commission in the said transactions. Mere non realization of the export value ipso facto is not in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the FERA Act. Counsel further argued that both the Courts below have not examined the scribe of Exs.P13 and P17, which are statements of A1 during investigation. Exs.P33 and P35 which are original G.R.Forms are highly suspicious. Accordingly, no case is made out against A1. 7. On behalf of A3, learned Senior Counsel submits that the only evidence placed by the prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
