TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained solely on the basis of confessional statements when their voluntariness was not established and no independent corroborative evidence proved the alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b).
Analysis: The appeal challenged the penalty on the ground that the only material relied upon was the confession of the appellant and co-noticees. The Tribunal noted that the record did not establish that the statement was voluntary and free from threat or coercion. It further held that, in the absence of independent supporting evidence, a retracted confession could not by itself form the basis for imposing penalty. Since the alleged receipt or payment to a person resident outside India was not otherwise proved, the statutory contravention was not made out.
Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained on the basis of the confessional statements alone, and the finding of contravention was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was annulled for want of legally reliable evidence establishing the alleged foreign exchange violation.
Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession cannot, without proof of voluntariness and independent corroborative evidence, be treated as the sole basis for penal liability under FERA.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
