TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,00,000 for contravention of section 9(1)(d)] upon the appellant for contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for receiving payments totalling to Rs. 25,50,000 and making payments totalling to Rs. 25,41,000 to various persons in India under instructions of one Shri Hanif of Dubai, a person resident outside India without the general or special exemption of RBI. 2. A SCN No. T-4/3/BZ/BAN/2000(DD)/657, dated 28-2-2000 issued to the appellant asking him to show cause why adjudication proceeding should not held against him. The following documents were relied upon in the said SCN : (1) Directive under section 33(2) of FERA, 1973 dated 3-8-1999 issued to M/s. J.T. Mobile ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA were heard. Shri Thiageswaran, advocate for the appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin filed written submissions for the respective parties and the same have been taken on record. 5. Shri Thiageswaran firstly contended that Department has failed to prove or file any material to prove existence of Shri Hanif. The adjudicating authority erred by presuming the existence of Hanif and his status on the basis of a Telephone number. The adjudicating authority has not given any finding on the letter of J. Patel duly attested by a Notary showing non- existence of Hanif as subscriber of the said telephone No. 233231 from the facts available through U.A.E. telephone department. Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA contended that non-existenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence no reliance can be placed on such statement for the purposes of finding the appellants guilty of the contravention as alleged. On the other hand Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA submitted that Adjudicating Officer arrived at the finding on the basis of statement recorded under section 40 of the Act and also the basis of the documents seized during the course of interrogation. It has been further contended that statements of S/Shri M. Abdul Khayoom, Muneer Pasha and Giridharlal Maloo are contradictory and when read together lead to divergent inferences. Further statement of Shri M. Abdul Khayoom and Shri Muneer Pasha shows that instructions were received from Saudi Arabia and not from Dubai whereas statement of Shri Giridharlal Maloo does not dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion but rule of prudence is required to be observed. In K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. UOI [1992] 197 ITR 1961 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice to say that the core of all the decisions of this court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the Customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts is a sinequa non to act on it for any purpose and, if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it cannot be recorded as involun....