1996 (1) TMI 339 - HC - Companies Law

Confiscation upheld for receiving unauthorized payments under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act

The court upheld the confiscation and penalty orders under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against the appellant for receiving unauthorized payments ... Restrictions on payments, Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents Issues:1. Appeal against confiscation and penalty under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.2. Interpretation of section 9(1)(b) of the Act.3. Applicability of circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes.4. Confessional statement made by the appellant.5. Inconsistencies in the appellant's statements.6. Argument regarding the confiscation order.7. Comparison with similar cases for confiscation.8. Final decision on the appeal and related stay petitions.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal against an order for confiscation and penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant received unauthorized payment on behalf of a person resident outside India, leading to confiscation of Rs. 30,000 and a penalty. The appeal was made under section 54 of the Act after the orders were confirmed by the authorities below.2. Section 9(1)(b) of the Act prohibits receiving payments on behalf of non-residents without going through an authorized dealer. The appellant received Rs. 40,000 on behalf of a person from Colombo, with Rs. 10,000 taken by the recipient and the rest confiscated. The penalty was reduced on appeal, but the confiscation was upheld due to the contravention of the mentioned section.3. The appellant argued that a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes should have been considered, citing a case law and a Supreme Court dismissal. However, the court found that the circular's applicability was limited to income tax assessments and did not exempt migrants from assessment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.4. The appellant made conflicting statements regarding the ownership of the seized amount. Initially admitting it belonged to the non-resident, the appellant later claimed it was the sale proceeds of properties belonging to another individual. The authorities relied on the original statement and the lack of explanation for the change in stance.5. The appellant's inconsistent statements raised doubts about the ownership of the amount seized. The authorities noted the discrepancies and concluded that the appellant's initial admission should be considered true, leading to the decision of contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Act.6. The appellant argued that the confiscation order should be set aside while retaining the penalty. However, the court found no merit in this argument, stating that the confiscation was justified based on the facts of the case and the contravention of the Act.7. The appellant's comparison with another case where confiscation was not ordered was dismissed by the court. Each case was considered based on its individual facts, and the decision in the present case was upheld without interference with the orders passed by the authorities below.8. The court ultimately dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal with costs, upholding the confiscation and penalty orders. The related stay petitions were also dismissed, concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.