2011 (2) TMI 1529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i where by the Director of Enforcement has imposed a penalty of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the appellant for contravention of provisions of Section 8(10) and 8(2) of FERA Act, 1973. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the premises of one Mohamed Omar Mistry were searched on 24-9-2007 and certain incriminating documents were seized and he was taken into custody on 24-9-1997 and he remanded for two days. During this period the statement of Mohamed Omar Mistry was recorded by the officers of Enforcement and on the basis of his statement the premises of the present appellant were also searched on 25-9-1997. During this search nothing was recovered and a statement of the present appellant was recorded on 25-9-1997 when he was in thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd contended that the statement of the present appellant is corroborated by Mohamed Omar Mistry and other evidence on record and therefore the Impugned Order deserves to be maintained. 7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and the statement of the present appellant and the statement of Mohamed Omar Mistry I find that both these statements were retracted. The Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar Solanki v Union of India - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) has laid down that the retracted statement cannot be made on the basis of penalty under FERA in absence independent corroborated evidence. So far as the statement of Mohamed Omar Mistry is concerned, in his statement he has stated that he has sold ....