1992 (10) TMI 280 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal Upholds Appeal Dismissal But Reduces Penalty Considering Appellant's Financial Constraints and Other Factors.

Phuman Singh Versus Director of Enforcement

The tribunal dismissed the appeal but reduced the penalty from Rs. 12,500 to Rs. 7,500. This decision considered the appellant's violations of section ... - Issues:Violation of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Violation of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the ActThe case involved contraventions of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was penalized Rs. 12,500 for these violations based on the seizure of documents during a search of a residential premises, which revealed payments made without proper authorization. The appellant did not respond to the show-cause notices, leading to adjudication proceedings and the imposition of the penalty.Issue 2: Reliability of Confessional StatementThe appellant's counsel argued that the confessional statement was not voluntary or true, as it was retracted and recorded in English despite the appellant not knowing the language. The defense also highlighted the lack of specific names mentioned in the statement and the absence of proof of actual remittance of money. However, the prosecution contended that the retraction was an afterthought, and the statement was corroborated by seized documents in coded language, indicating the authenticity of the confession.Issue 3: Consideration of Circumstances and PrecedentsThe appellant's counsel requested leniency due to financial constraints and the familial nature of the transactions. They cited legal precedents to support their arguments. On the other hand, the respondent emphasized that the appellant's counsel had admitted the contravention during the adjudication process and that a lenient view had already been taken in imposing the penalty. The tribunal considered the circumstances, including the personal use of the money and the appellant's occupation as an agriculturist in Punjab, in reducing the penalty from Rs. 12,500 to Rs. 7,500.ConclusionThe tribunal dismissed the appeal while reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 12,500 to Rs. 7,500, considering the established violations of the Act, the reliability of the confessional statement, and the appellant's circumstances.