numberstatements were however.
1190648.
1984 the appellants preferred their respective appeals to the appellate tribunal under section 129a of the act.
1987 of the customs excise gold companytrol appellate tribunal new delhi in appeal number cd bom 398 399 of 1984.
300000 on each of the appellants.
the appellants claim to be the citizens of india is number disputed.
it is alleged that these statements were obtained under duress and by using third degree methods against them who soon thereafter retracted their statements.
mehta is companycerned he had replied to the show cause numberice issued by the enforcement directorate and the mater is pending adjudication.
companylector of customs preventive bombay whereby he imposed a penalty of rs.
1 lakh for each of the appellants.
1219 20 nm of 1987.
in the fera proceedings.
pending hearing of the appeal to rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
in february 1993 when the appellants came to india they were charged with alleged offences under sections 112 and 114 of the act and also simultaneously with the alleged offences under the foreign exchange regulation act 1973 hereinafter called the fera .the enforcement authorities recorded under section 40 of the fera the appellants statements at the time of their arrest.
the tribunal reduced the amount of penalty to be deposited in an application made under section 129e of the act.
1 lakh they sought further reduction.
from the judgment and order dated 17.3.
it is alleged that since neither of the appellants were in any financial position to deposit even rs.
the questions involved in these two appeals are identical.
the appellants had admitted their part in the systematic illegal export of foreign exchange from india during the past several years.
against the said order dated 19.1.
accordingly by an order dated 29.10.1985 of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate 8th companyrt esplanade bombay has was discharged and his bailbond was cancelled.
at the material time in 1983 they were based in hong kong and singapore respectively.
so far as the appellant j.d.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. these two appeals are under section 130e b of the customs act 1962 hereinafter called the act from the orders passed by the customs excise gold companytrol appellate tribunal hereinafter called the cegat .
in the meantime the proceedings under sections 111 to 114 118 of the act resulted in the order dated 19.1.1984 of the addl.
s. ganesh for the appellants.
