1998 (1) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the Adjudication Order No. ADE(AC) 111/04/97, dated 18-6-1997 under which a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of sections 9(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The appellant has already deposited the amount of penalty. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....luntary and that he retracted the same at the first opportunity; that if those statements are shut out from evidence there is no other evidence to sustain the allegation and that the break-up of distribution of alleged amount has not been given, thus, rendering the allegations as vague. All these contentions have been considered by the learned Adjudicating Officer in the impugned order. The same h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....above documents, the appellant never questioned the Panchnama by seeking cross-examination of the panch witnesses or by producing any other evidence even though the Panchnama was one of the documents relied on in the show-cause notice. In the circumstances, I do not find any force in the appellant's denial of the recovery of seized documents. 6. I find, from a bare perusal of the seized documen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant. The admission by some of the recipients of the amounts remitted by the appellant further corroborates the remittance from abroad in violation of section 9(3). It is also to be seen that the break-up of the amount remitted by the appellant is not necessary for the charge under section 9(3) and the appellant's plea to the contrary has no force. 7. As regards the charge of contraventio....