Page 168 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

702 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Evidence under FERA - Statement of employee of accused which re-
tracted next day and bereft of any particulars such as names of persons from
whom seized funds received and distributed, cannot be relied upon particular-
ly when same not corroborated with any other evidence. [paras 19, 20]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India — (1992) 3 SCC 178 — Relied on ................................................ [Para 18]
Vinod Solanki v. Union of India — 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.)
= 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) — Relied on .................................................................................... [Para 17]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, S/Shri Bhuvnesh Satija,
Ajinkya Tiwari and Siddharth Manocha, Advocates,
for the Appellant.
Shri Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Mallika
Hiremath, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 35
of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereafter ‘FEMA’) read with
Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 (hereafter ‘FERA’) im-
pugning an order dated 28-2-2016 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the
Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.
62/2014 captioned ‘Sh. Manak Kala v. Special Director (Appeals), Enforcement Direc-
torate’.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred
by the appellant against an order dated 24-9-2014 (hereafter referred to as ‘the
Appellate Order’) passed by the Special Director (Appeals). By the Appellate Or-
der, the Special Director (Appeals) reduced the penalty that was imposed on the
appellant by an order dated 17-2-2014 passed by the Deputy Director of En-
forcement (hereafter the ‘Adjudicating Authority’). By that order, the Adjudicat-
ing Authority had imposed a penalty of ` 75,00,000/- on the appellant and di-
rected confiscation of the amount of ` 7,95,000/- seized from his office, under
Section 63 of FERA.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy
arising in this appeal, are as under :
3.1 On 21-3-1995, a search was conducted at the residence of one Sh.
Satish Kumar Sharma @ Pappu, at 3959, Gali Ahiran Pahadi Dhiraj, New Delhi.
An aggregate amount of ` 8,25,000/- and various documents were seized. It is
alleged that the said documents disclosed distribution of certain Hawala pay-
ments. It is stated that the statement of Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma @ Pappu to the
effect that he was engaged in the business of receipt and distribution of pay-
ments in India under the instructions of one Munna Bhai of Dubai, was recorded.
He stated that certain payments that were disclosed in the documents seized
from his residence were made under instructions from Dubai. According to the
Enforcement Directorate, the said documents disclosed that certain payments
had been made to one Ashish, Telephone No. 528214. Inquiries revealed that the
telephone connection corresponding to the said Telephone Number (528214) was
installed in the office of M/s. Anukampa Tours and Travels (P) Ltd., 3061, Desh
Bandhu Gupta Road, Gali Sangtarashan, Paharganj and one Sh. Ashish Jain was
employed with the said concern.
3.2 On 4-10-1995, the business premises of M/s. Anukampa Tours and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  168