2024 (6) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tailed impugned order has been passed in reference to six different show cause notices. So far as the appellant is concerned, it is show cause notice no. V served along with Sudhir Kapadia for payment of Rs. 14,82,000/- to Manubhai Patel of Mumbai. It was alleged that amount aforesaid was in consideration of arranging 38,000 U.S. $ in the account bearing number 13683 of Chrrara Branch, Corresponding Bank, Chase Manhattan, New York in contravention of section 9 (1) (f) (i) of FERA 1973. 2. Referring to the facts, it is stated that an investigation was initiated against Sudhir Kapadia and the appellant for contravention of section 9 (1) (f) (i) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short, the Act of 1973). 3. The statement of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order to book the appellant or show his involvement. 5. The appellant's case was specifically dealt in the impugned order but therein no material has been referred to show contravention of section 9 (1) by him. 6. The appellant was not given opportunity to even cross-examine Sudhir Kapadia whose sole statement was relied or used against him. It is despite specific prayer but denied without any reason. Thereby it is not only that retracted statement of Sudhir Kapadia has been used against the appellant but it was without providing an opportunity of cross examination. 7. In view of the above, even principle of natural justice was violated. It is also submitted that the documentary evidence on record was also not showing invo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s sent by fax to Baghubhai. The payment of US$ 38,000 was said to have been made on the instruction of the appellant who was owner of M/s Diamond India Granite Limited. Other than the statement of Sudhir Kapadia though retracted, no other material has been relied. 10. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order. 11. The appeal has been contested by the respondents. It is submitted that during the course of investigation and before the search at the residence of Sudhir Kapadia, bunch marked "B" was seized. 12. In the statement of Sudhir Kapadia, recorded on 31.07.1996, he named Baghubhai for the payment of 38,000 US$ on the instruction of appellant, Amit Shah. Shri Sudhir Kapadia contacted Baghubhai of London who asked him to h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'B' seized from the residence of Sh. Sudhir Kapadia reads as under:- While explaining the said page; Sh.Sudhir Kapadia in his statement on 31.7.96(Page 13) inter alia stated that it contained the details of an account in New York which were sent by fax to Sh. Bhagubhai by him; that the said payment of U.S. $ 38,000 was made on the instructions of Sh. Amit Shah who is the owner of M/s Diamond Granite India Ltd.; that he (Amit) had approached him on 16th or 17th July 1996 & told him that he require an amount of U.S. $ 38,000 outside India @ Rs.39/- per $; that he contacted Bhagubhai in London who asked him to hand over the amount of Rs.14,82,000 to Sh.Mahendrabhai; that he collected the said amount from Amit Shah on 18th July from h....