VINOD SOLANKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 160 of 1996 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. That appeal was dismissed by an order dated 16th July, 2007. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said order.

(2.) By an order dated 19th March, 1006 (sic) the Adjudicating Officer imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the appellants for contravening the provisions of Section 8(3) of FERA to the extent of US Dollars 34,230 for his failure to utilise the said foreign exchange for the purpose it was released to him and further under Section 9(1)(a) of the FERA for the same amount being remitted outside India without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India.

(3.) A search was carried out in the premises of the appellant which resulted in the seizure of incriminating documents and Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 2,65,000/. His statement was recorded. In the statement, various facts were set out. Before the tribunal, it was contended that the provisions of Section 8(3) was not attracted and at the highest it would be a case whether Section 48 of FERA would be applicable. It was further set out that the retracted confessional statement which was retracted on the first available opportunity was relied upon. The said statement was not corrobo rated in material particulars. Hence, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the foreign exchange was remitted to Hongkong and no charge was proved against the appellant under Section 9(1)(a).