9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The allegation against the appellant is that he received various amounts totalling Rs. 44,000 during the years 1987 to 1992 from persons in India by order or on behalf of his brother Shri Sarwar Imam Hashan, resident in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own accounts in India. He submitted that in his reply to the SCN he requested the department to enquire whether any person has received any amount for or on behalf of his non-resident brother and whether any such person has sent the draft for being credited to his account. He submitted that had the department verified the true position from the drafts issuing bank, it would have been known whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to maintain his family out of the income from his salary and it would cause undue hardship to him if he is required to pre- deposit the amount of penalty. 4. I have carefully considered the record of the case and submissions made by the appellant. I have also heard Dr. Shamsuddin who submitted that the finding of contravention should be sustained at least in respect of the total amount of Rs. 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of several years and apparently one amount was sent in one year. It cannot be ruled out from a perusal of the dates on which the amounts were credited that these amounts were sent after exchange or with corresponding remittance in foreign exchange. There is no positive evidence that the appellant's brother sent these amounts in violation of section 9(3) or these amounts had been sent b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
