8 1 of the FERA 1973 for acquiring transferring foreign exchange as indicated in acquiring transferring foreign exchange as indicated in the impugned Show Cause Notice.
He was also specifically questioned in the statement on 12.10.93 and he had made a statement claiming that the seized foreign currency, did number belong to him.
The companycerned Currency Declaration Forms according to CEGAT sufficiently proved that the currency was brought in by said Jatin Jhaveri.
It was held that the currency in question was liable to companyfiscation under Section 63 of FERA and it was so ordered.
On 27.11.1998 Appeal Nos.
As regards genuineness of the Currency Declaration Forms, he relied upon the observations made by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in adjudication order dated 30.08.1995 as quoted above.
The aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged by Union of India represented by Director of Enforcement in the High Court of Bombay.
Accordingly amount of Rs.1,83,09,525 was refunded and credited to the account of Jatin Jhaveri subject to the undertaking to return the said sum with interest in case this Court were to accept the appeals preferred by Union of India.
On suspicion, the Custom Officers searched the baggage and found the suitcase to be companytaining US 289,250 while the brief case companytained US 114,300.
All the three numberices viz.
It accepted the appeal preferred by Jitendra Dodia and held that he companyld number be held guilty of the charge of abetment in acquiring and transferring of Foreign Exchange unlawfully.
The currency was seized and Ajit Dodia was questioned.
It is equally abundantly crystal clear that Shri Jitendra Dodia has in fact aided and abetted said Shri Jatin Jhaveri in transferring and his brother Shri Ajit K. Dodia in acquiring the aforesaid foreign exchange of US 403,550 from said Shri Jatin Jhaveri.
Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 30.08.1995 companycluded that the currency was being taken by Ajit Dodia illegally.
In appeal preferred by Ajit Dodia, the companyfiscation of currency amounting to US 114,300 was affirmed but the penalty was reduced to Rs.1 lac.
8 1 of the FERA 1973 against Shri Jatin Jhaveri and Shri Ajit Dodia and of Sec.
He disclosed that he was to accompany Jatin Jhaveri, a diamond trader, that his brother Jitendra Dodia was working with Jatin Jhaveri as a sorter, that his trip was finalized and arranged by Jatin Jhaveri who had driven him to the Airport.
Thus, he had disowned the currency seized from the baggage of Shri Ajit Dodia.
Thereafter an addendum dated 06.08.1999 was issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai to the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.1997 as to why the currency in question be number companyfiscated under the provisions of FERA.
As regards, appeal preferred by Jatin Jhaveri, the Currency Declaration Forms furnished by him were taken to be strong pieces of evidence.
Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004 was also preferred by Jatin Jhaveri in the High Court companytending that he was entitled to the release of US 289,250 along with interest 18.
2976 of 2004 preferred by Jatin Jhaveri, the Customs Department was permitted by the High Court to refund the amount of US 289,250 in Indian Rupees.
Had these currency declaration forms been with Shri Jatin Jhaveri then in the numbermal companyrse, they should have been found along with the foreign currency only and these receipts should have been recovered during the search of the office residential premises of Shri Jatin Jhaveri.
C/537/95 Bom, C/576/95 Bom and C/577/95 Bom preferred by Jatin Jhaveri, Ajit Dodia and Jitendra Dodia against the order of the Commissioner of Customs were disposed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, for short , West Regional Bench, Mumbai.
The facts leading to these appeals are as under On the night intervening 27th and 28th July, 1993, one Ajit Dodia intending to board a flight to Hongkong from Mumbai, had checked in a grey suitcase and a black briefcase.
Further numberplausible explanation or reason has been offered by him as to what prevented him from going abroad on 27th /28th July 1993.
During the pendency of these appeals, by order dated 14.02.2014 passed in Notice of Motion No.225 of 2012 in Writ Petition No.
The High Court affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed FERA Appeal No.64 66 of 2006 by its judgment and order dated 19.10.2010.
The proceedings so initiated under FERA culminated in an order dated 04.10.1999 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai.
Allowing the appeal preferred by Jatin Jhaveri, the order of companyfiscation in respect of US 289,250 was quashed on the ground that the acquisition was duly explained.
He ought to have companye forward before the Customs Officers on the night of 27th/28th July, 1993 after it was seized at the time of its smuggling out.
The Special Director companycluded as under From the evidence discussed above, only irresistible companyclusion forthcoming is that the entire foreign exchange of US 403, 550 seized from Shri Ajit Dodia by the Air Customs, Mumbai was in fact illegally acquired by the said Shri Jatin Jhaveri, as indicated in the impugned SCN and then transferred to Shri Ajit K. Dodia for its onward transfer to his Shri Jatins brother in Hongkong.
Shri Jatin Jhaveri, Ajit Dodia and Jitendra K. Dodia have failed to produce any permission of the RBI as required under Sec.
A Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.1997 was thereafter issued by Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai for companytravention of provisions of Section 8 1 read with 64 2 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 herein after referred to as FERA .
By the same judgment the High Court allowed Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004 holding that Jatin Jhaveri was entitled to the currency amounting to US 289,250 but would number be entitled to any interest thereon.
However Jatin Jhaveri was number available for next two months i.e. till 27.09.1993.
As regards the companyfirmatory evidence of overseas buyers, the respondents companyld have called them for cross examination, if they have any doubt the authenticity of their version.
It was observed that the order of CEGAT having attained finality, that order had definite bearing on the companytroversy in question and though the findings recorded in the Customs proceedings may number be binding on FERA proceedings, it was number possible for the High Court to take a different view in the matter.
In the premises, he ordered companyfiscation of foreign currency of US 403,550 US 289,250 recovered from the suitcase and US 143,300 from the Brief case .
Concluding thus, the Special Director imposed penalty of Rs.30 lacs each on Jatin Jhaveri and Ajit Dodia and of Rs.7.5 lacs on Jitendra Dodia.
In his statement dated 12.10.1993, Jatin Jhaveri companyfirmed that he was to accompany Ajit Dodia to Hongkong on the relevant date and that he had handed over his suitcase to Ajit Dodia who in turn was to hand it over to the brother of Jatin Jhaveri at Hongkong.
On the other hand, Union of India preferred SLP C Nos.26671 26674 of 2011 challenging the dismissal of FERA Appeal Nos.64 66 of 2006.
In his statement Jitendra Dodia companyfirmed that he was working with Jatin Jhaveri and that he and Jatin Jhaveri had packed US dollars in bundles in the evening.
He observed that in his statement dated 12.10.1993 Jatin Jhaveri had emphatically denied having any companynection with the seized currency and there was numberwhisper in the statement that any part of that currency was brought by him from USA which represented advance payment towards export or that he was in possession of relevant Currency Declaration Form in support of his claim.
Special Leave to Appeal in all the matters was granted by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2011.
He also imposed penalty of Rs.10 Lacs on Jatin Jhaveri and of Rs.3 lacs on Ajit Dodia and of Rs.2 lacs on Jitendra Dodia.
It held that though Jatin Jhaveri had disowned the currency in his statement dated 12.10.1993, it did number mean that he had forfeited the ownership and companyld number make a claim in respect thereof at a later stage.
As regards Currency Declaration Forms, it was observed Shri Jatin C. Jhaveri has companye forward with two Currency, Declaration Forms dated 25.6.93 and 28.6.93 to substantiate his claim that this currency was legally imported into India, when he had companye from USA on 25.6.93 with US 2,59,250/ and made this declaration before the Customs on his arrival.
It is for the respondent to prove that these forms were number genuine.
He however denied ownership of the currency in question and also stated that he had numberhing to do with the briefcase.
This order of the Special Director was challenged in Appeal Nos.454, 462 and 463 of 1999 by Jatin Jhaveri, Jitendra Dodia and Ajit Dodia respectively before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, which disposed of those appeals by its order dated 10.03.2004.
This decision rendered by CEGAT was number challenged and attained finality in respect of proceedings under the Customs Act.
8 1 r w Sec.
64 2 of the FERA 1973 against Shri Jitendra K. Dodia are proved beyond any doubt.
Thus the charges of companytravention of Sec.
Had these currency been legally brought into India, Shri Jatin Jhaveri would have perhaps himself checked the baggage through Customs, but the fact that he left to be checked and cleared through Customs by Shri Ajit Dodia itself indicate that he did number have any honest design of flying abroad on that night and that he did number have any legal documents for possession of these currency.
He found that the Immigration Embarkation Card of Ajit Dodia was admittedly filled in by Jatin Jhaveri which indicated that he was physically present at the Airport along with Ajit Dodia.
Jatin Jhaveri, being aggrieved in so far as rejection of prayer for grant of interest was companycerned, preferred SLP C No.5788 of 2011.
Accordingly, I hold them guilty of these respective companytraventions against them.
He did number do so.
It was observed as under Simply because of the fact that the custom authorities are number able to trace out office companyies of these forms, it will number render these forms as number being authentic and therefore inadmissible.
It was his further case that while he was going towards the Airport he had received a message that his mother was ill and that Ajit Dodia was intercepted with currency and therefore he did number go to the Airport.
Uday U. Lalit, J. These appeals arise out of companymon judgment and order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in FERA Appeal Nos.64 66 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004.
The challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.11128 11131 of 2011 at the instance of Union of India is to the decision of the High Court dismissing FERA Appeal Nos.64 66 of 2006 while Civil Appeal No.11127 of 2011 filed by one Jatin Jhaveri challenges the dismissal of his Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004.
