2023 (9) TMI 1559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant for contravention of regulation 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property In India) Regulations, 2000. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and held a passport of that country. He purchased an immovable property in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, i.e., a shop admeasuring 203 sq. ft. in Peepal Mandi, Dehradun for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh in 2000. Before acquiring the aforesaid immovable properties, the appellant did not take any permission from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) or any other government body as required under regulation 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after examination of the documents submitted by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, de novo adjudication proceedings were held. The Learned Adjudicating Authority, while holding that there was no case for confiscation of the property under section13(2) of FEMA, 1999, imposed a further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant, Shri Rajkumar Malhotra. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under section 17 of FEMA before the learned Special Director(Appeals) challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Learned Special Director (Appeals), through a detailed speaking order passed on 22-9-2022, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further penalty. The main contentions of the appellant against imposition of further penalty on him are as follows: • That the appellant was granted citizenship of India on 15-2-2017 and a certificate of naturalization was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act, 1955 on that date. In view of this, he submits, the adjudicating authority ought to have considered that the transaction pertaining to the purchase of the immovable property has been "automatically regularised" and the appellant cannot be treated as a Pakistani national for the purpose of FEMA regulations • That there was no involvement of any foreign exchange in the instant case as the properties were purchased in India with the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty. Certain other case laws have also been cited by the Appellant in favour of his case. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has strongly contested the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant. it is submitted that at the relevant time the appellant was not a citizen of India but citizen of Pakistan and ignorance of law cannot be a defence. It is also contended that the order of the Adjudicating Authority which has been upheld by the learned Special Director(Appeals) was reasonable and fair in so far as the learned appellate authority did not find any merit in the proposal for confiscation under section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999,but merely imposed a further penalty upon the Appellant. 11. We have given careful considerat....