1998 (6) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. The appellant has pleaded financial hardship as well as prima facie case. Dr. Shamsuddin has nothing to controvert the financial position as claimed by the appellant in his affidavit dated 22-1-1996. He has no objection that the appeal be taken up for consideration on merit. In the circumstances, I decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that during 1986-87 he acquired foreign exchange aggregating to US $42,900 from several persons other than authorised dealers in foreign exchange without the permission of the RBI and thereby contravening the provisions of section 8(1) of the Act. The factual premises on which the charges based are not dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat these 10 passengers had accompanied the appellant during their visit to Singapore. However, Shri Mahendra Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has disputed the correctness of this observation. It is stated in para 5 of the written statement filed by the learned counsel that none of these passengers has made any statement that he had handed over the FTS to the appellant. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the Enforcement Officer did not interrogate any of the 10 passengers so as to know the correct facts. 6. It appears to me that in his statement before the Enforcement Officer, the appellant had stated that the entire transaction was financed by one Jagan Nath for an amount of Rs. 3,78,000 for all the trips h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....course of hearing Dr. Shamsuddin did not dispute that the goods alleged to have been purchased by the appellant in Singapore were brought as accompanied baggage of the passengers and the customs duty for the same on their arrival at Madras Airport was paid by some one other than the appellant. In the circumstances, the role of the appellant is only of a person who has helped the financiers and the passengers in accompanying the passengers, who were acting for the financier. He helped them in purchasing the tickets, in obtaining FTS amounts, in purchasing the goods required by the financier and accompanying them back to India. Since it is not denied that the FTS was issued in the name of each passenger, that the goods were purchased out of t....