1984 (3) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... U.S. $ 6,700 and the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed upon him, was affirmed. 2. The officers of the Directorate of Enforcement searched the person of the appellant at the Jullundur City Railway Station on December 22, 1981, and recovered from his brief case the foreign currency of the value of U.S. $ 6,700. He along with his family consisting of his wife, sons, daughter-in-law and the grand children was on his way to Texas (U.S.A.). He has a son called Mr. Roger Moore alias Dilraj Singh in the U.S.A. who is running a restaurant there under the name and style of "Dutch's Restaurant" in Texas. He is a retired Inspector of Police who went to the U.S.A. along with his wife on January 7, 1981 and returned to India on June 7, 1981. He wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of law. The adjudicating officer after considering all the documents and the contentions of both the parties came to the conclusion that there had been violation of Section 3(1) of the Act by him and, thus, imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on this count apart from the confiscation of the amount recovered from him. In appeal, the Appellate Board affirmed the said findings of the adjudication officer and, thus, maintained the order passed by him. As observed earlier, dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court. 3.  The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the powers and functions of the Appellate Board could be exercised and discharged by the Benches consisting of two Members as constit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant was a person resident outside India and, thus, such a person who was not a person resident in India, could not be held guilty of the violation of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act. 5.  After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in this contention as well. 6.  Section 8(1) of the Act, reads,- "Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person other than an. authorised dealer shall in India, and no person resident in India other than an authorised dealer shall outside India, purchase or otherwise acquire or borrow from, or sell, or otherwise transfer or lend to or exchange with, any person not being an authorised dealer, any foreign e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....show that the appellant had earned the amount shown therein in foreign currency, but not that he saved the amount as has been recovered from him. So, even if the presumption had been raised, it could be of no avail to the appellant. 8. Even if the documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim are admitted to be correct, even then, he has failed to discharge the burden placed on him as contemplated under Section 71(3) of the Act. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the authorities below and it has been found that it was not indicated how much foreign currency was brought by the appellant to India and how much was left behind. Therefore, it was concluded that from the circumstantial evidence also, it wa....