2009 (9) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and besides confiscating the seized amount of Rs. 3,20,000 in terms of section 63 of the FER Act. The amount of the penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,000 has been adjusted from the seized Indian currency and the balance amount has been paid by the appellant. The appellant neither appeared nor represented by anyone where having no option this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri A.C. Singh, DLA for the respondent and gone through the record, relevant law and judicial pronouncements carefully. The show-cause notice was issued against the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was liable to be allowed. 5. It will be appropriate here to produce the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the FERA, 1973, for better appreciation of the legal position which provide as under : "9. Restrictions on payments.-(1) Save as may be provided in, and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall- ** ** ** (b) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India; Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, where any person in, or resident in, India receives any payment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is also not explained. 7. In the instant case, the appellant retracted his confessional statement but the burden of proving the fact that the statement was recorded under threat and coercion was on the appellant himself which he has not been able to discharge for want of evidence. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1831 that it is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, coercion, threat, etc. to establish that such a force was adopted which burden has not been discharged b' appellant for want of evidence. In K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate [1997] 3 SCC 721 it has, been observed by the Supreme Court that the retracted confess....