TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Airport, Chennai, when he was about to leave for Singapore. The search of his baggage resulted in the recovery of foreign currencies viz. US$ 192150 & Singapore $ 97 both valued at Rs. 89,76,024/-. The subsequent search on 3.8.2003 at his Hotel room No.119 at Karpagam International Hotel, Chennai resulted in the seizure of US$ 42500, Saudi Riyals 118000, both valued at Rs. 35,09,140/-. Sh. Krishnaswamy Govindan was arrested and thereafter the adjudication of the case by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, led to the confiscation of the entire seized foreign exchange under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of FEMA, 1999 and Regulation 5 of FEM (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and also imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on him. Based on the said information, Enforcement Directorate has initiated investigation under FEMA, 1999 against the said Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan. As the said Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan is a resident of Secunderabad, hence enquiries were initially initiated by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad. Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan has sent a letter date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neither appeared, nor replied. Thus, though Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan had been given several opportunities to appear before the office to present his case, he did not turn up and hence the investigation was finalised based on the available records. In his voluntary statements dated 03.08.2003 and 05.08.2003 given before DRI, Chennai under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan has, inter-alia, stated that he worked in various countries including USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. from the year 1989, that he started a firm M/s Fidelity Telecom (Asia) Telecom Ltd. in Singapore during 2000 and sold mobile phones imported from UK & Spain, but closed the business as he could not run the business successfully and returned to Chennai. Meanwhile, he developed contact with one Nazir of Chennai who was engaged in large-scale money changing business in Chennai and also dealing in mobile phones. Mr. Nazir had offered him substantial monetary benefit for smuggling huge foreign currencies out of India and he accepted the offer as it was attractive. On 1st August, 2003, Nazir handed over 23 bundles containing foreign currencies valued at Rs. 90 lakhs and asked him to ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout the general or special permission of Reserve Bank of India b. Sec. 3(a) of FEMA, 1999 by dealing the foreign exchange of US $ 2,34,650 (US $ 1,92,150 & US $ 42,500), Saudi Riyals 1,18,000 and Singapore $ 97 unauthorisedly without the general or special permission of Reserve Bank of India and has thereby rendered himself liable to be proceeded against under Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. In response to the Show Cause Notice issued to Shri Krishnaswamy Govindan, he had submitted a written submission dated 16.7.2014, in which he, inter alia, stated that he had not committed any offence as alleged in the Show cause Notice. He had no connection with the seized foreign currencies. The allegations against him were made based either on wrong identification of the person, or due to misleading information received by the officers of DRI. The allegations were made only based on the statements recorded by DRI officers under threat and pressure, which he retracted later. He did not know either Nazir or Ramzan and did not have any connection with them. Even if, he accepts the allegation as per the show cause notice, he was just a carrier and did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly, the arguments concluded on behalf of the Respondent ED. The contention/arguments of both the sides are reproduced in the following paragraphs. 5. The appellant has contended that from the very beginning he is contesting the alleged recovery and abandoned the so-called seized amount which was more than Rs. 1 crore in value of Indian currency. He contended that if the said amount really belonged to the appellant himself, then he would not have abandoned such huge amount and would have happily claimed the same. He stressed that the allegation against the appellant were based on wrong identification of the real culprit, or due to misleading information received by the officers of DRI. The alleged statement of appellant is recorded by Respondent ED under threat and pressure. He pointed out that during the search on 02.08.2003, nothing incriminating was found in his possession in person or in handbag. He argued that no incriminating documents were recovered either from his house at Secunderabad or from the house relating to him at Trichy. He submitted that as per the story of the DRI the checked in baggage contained foreign currency were USD 193150 kept in 3 magazines in th....