TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th January 2004 passed by the Special Director (?SD?), Enforcement Directorate (?ED?), holding the Appellant to be in contravention of Sections 8 (3) read with 8 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (?FERA?), 1973 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 on the Appellant. 2. Appeal No. 844 of 2008 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9th June 2008 passed by the AT dismissing Appeal No. 344 of 2004, which was directed against the AO dated 30th January 2004 passed by the SD, ED finding the Appellant to be in violation of Sections 8 (1) read with 9 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (c) FERA and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000 on the Appellant. The AT found that the charge for contravention of Sections 8 (1) read with 9 (1) (a) FERA w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and USD 86,689.94 declared in the import invoices and remitted through bank did not represent the actual value of imported material. It was accordingly alleged that the aforementioned foreign exchange had been failed to be utilised by M/s. Wings Electronics for the purposes for which the sum was acquired and, therefore, there was violation of Sections 8 (3) and 8(4) FERA. 5. In the second SCN, it was stated that from the documents, it was revealed that one consignment of USD 3,198 (equivalent to HKD 24695) was imported by M/s. VEC from M/s. Pearl in 1996 and that the actual value of the 42 consignments declared before the Hong Kong Customs authorities was HKD 55,81,246 as against HKD 23,40,024, the value declared in the invoices an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Mr. Handa under Section 40 FERA proved under-invoicing of the imports. By the two separate AOs dated 30th January 2004, the SD imposed penalties on the Appellants, as noticed hereinbefore. 8. The two appeals, i.e., Appeal Nos.344 and 346 of 2004 of the Appellants were dismissed by the impugned common order dated 9th June 2008 of the AT. It was specifically contended before the AT that the invoices of M/s. Lucent Technologies Singapore could not be used to determine the value of the goods imported from Hong Kong without proof of contemporaneous value of imports. It was further submitted that the ED itself did not conduct any independent investigation but simply used the documents received from the DRI. It was pointed out that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (?NDPS?) were concerned. It was held that ?The enquiry contemplated under Section 108 is for the purpose of 1962 Act and not for the purpose of convicting an accused under any other statute including the provision of the Act?. 12. The reliance by Respondent on the decision in Krishan v. R.K. Virmani, Air Customs Officer 2013 (288) ELT 366 (Del) is misplaced since that case dealt with proceedings under the CA. It was not a case where a statement made under Section 108 of the CA was used as substantive evidence in proceedings under the FERA. Consequently, in the present case the AT erred in holding that the statement of Mr. Puri under Section 108 of the CA corroborated the documents seized by th....