TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was otherwise given to 9 noticees for contravention of Section 3(c) of the Act of 1999. It was in reference to the complaint dated 30.03.2009 when notices were issued to 6 persons other than the appellant. The Indian currency of Rs. 23,06,000/- along with 13 fax messages and one fax machine were found. A panchnama was prepared on 04.07.2008 when 6 cell phones were also found. 2. It is a case where the Hyderabad Police informed the Enforcement Directorate about the seizure of Indian currency and fax messages apart from the cell phones. A confession- cum-seizure panchnama dated 04.07.2008 was drawn by the Hyderabad Police indicating that one Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin has admitted the receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- from Shri Bhik Singh, employee of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haja Moinuddin, Mohd. Abdul Basheer, Abdul Mohd. Abdul Khadeer and Abdul Hadi used to receive money from Shri Suresh Jain and Shri Mool Chand Jain. The statements under section 37 of the Act of 1999 were recorded. The Special Director finding the contravention of Section 3(c) of the Act of 1999 imposed the penalty on each noticee. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that an opportunity of cross-examination was not provided while relying on the statement of 4 co-noticees and thereby principles of natural justice was violated. On the aforesaid ground itself, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. It is, further, submitted that the statement was recorded on 04.07.2008 under Section 37 of the Act 1999 could not have been relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia for distribution thereafter to a person resident in India. However, finding the statement and other facts the involvement of appellant was found and accordingly penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed. The statement recorded under Section 37 of the Act of 1999 can be relied and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed having no merit on it. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. The brief facts of the case has been given in the opening paras of the order. The case was initiated when, City Police Hyderabad apprehended 6 persons and seized Indian currency of Rs. 23,06,000/- along with 13 fax messages, one fax machine and 6 cell phones under confession-and- seizure panchnama dated 04.07.2008....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our-opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross- examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant (emphasis added)". 12. A reference of the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in 2000(4) CTC 298 has been given where the same issue has been dealt with. It was specifically considering the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 which are identical to the Foreign Exchange Manageme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount in India. As per the 13 fax messages recovered from the noticees, they received in all Rs. 2,17,69,300/- and out of which a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was received from the noticee no. 3 on the instructions of Munaf of UAE and Hashim of Saudi Arabia. The noticee Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin in his statement dated 04.07.2008 named the appellant for receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/- for distribution in India. It was with the further statement that the amount was received by Shri Mool Chand Jain on the instructions of Munaf of UAE, though, the appellant denied receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the instructions of any person resident outside India. I, however, do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of co-noticees dated 04.07.2008 as otherwise they....