1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL NO.30 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2009 Shri Pukhraj Ganeshmal Jain @ Prakash M/s. Prakash Jewellers, 39, Jail Road, (East) Mavani Mansion, Char Null, Dongari, Mumbai 400 009. ...Appellant. v. The Deputy Director of Enforcement Janmabhoomi chambers, 1st floor, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Mumbai 400 001 ...Respondent. Mr.Ashutosh Khandeparkar, adv. For the Appellant. Mrs.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.Y.R.Mishra, advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 18TH JUNE, 2009 ORDER-P.C. 1 The Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (In short ‘FERA’) against the concurrent finding of the adjudicating officer and the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange whereby, he was held to be guilty of contravention of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA for having received an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from one Abid Nellukutta Abdul 2 Rehman as per instructions from one Badruddin of Dubai for making ornaments. According to the Revenue, the appellant had not obtained any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to receive the said amount from a person non resident in India. 2 The impugned orders revealed that search of said A.N. Abdul Rehman resulted in seizure of certain incriminating documents. His statement also came to be recorded on 5.8.1997, 6.8.1997 and 8.9.1997 in respect of said documents. He revealed that he had made payments of about Rs.25 crore during the year 1996-97 to different persons under the instructions from one Badruddin of Dubai. It was also revealed by his statement as well as documents that Abdul Rehman had paid an amount of Rs.12 lacs to the appellant. On 8.9.1997, official premises of M/s. Prakash Jewellers, the proprietorship concern of the appellant came to be searched, which resulted in seizure of certain documents and Indian currency of Rs.1 lac. His statement was also recorded on the same day under Section 40 of the FERA wherein he admitted to have received an amount of Rs.12 lac during the June and July, 1997 from unknown persons under instructions of his friend, i.e., one Ahmed of Dubai for making ornaments for his sister. Later on, the appellant retracted said confessional statement. However, relying on retracted confessional 3 statement supported by the documents seized from Abdul Rehman and premises of the present appellant, Adjudicating Officer held him guilty for the contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the FERA which prohibits receipt of any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India, otherwise than through an authorised dealer unless recipient has obtained necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India. Adjudicating officer imposed penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the said contravention. The order passed by the adjudicating authority came to be challenged in Appeal No.238 of 1999 before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal confirmed the order holding the appellant guilty of contravention of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.1 lac, which was seized from his premises, was not confiscated and was adjusted against the penalty imposed upon him. 3 After perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, we find that both the authorities have minutely considered the facts and the available evidence including documents. The contentions of the appellant are that retracted confessional statement could not be acted upon and he was not given an opportunity of cross-examination of the 4 concerned officer. This objection was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by giving sound reasons. The impugned orders are not merely based on the retracted confessional statements but also on the documents. The appellate Tribunal noted that the appellant had failed to make out a case that he had made confessional statement under the inducement, coercion or threat and that he could not give valid reasons for retraction of his confessional statement. Appeal before the High Court under Section 54 lies only on the question of law. In view of the concurrent finding of the facts of both the authorities below and the reasons given in the impugned orders, we do not find any question of law involved in the present appeal. 4 Therefore, Appeal stands dismissed. 5 As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.17 of 2009, which was filed to stay the impugned order, does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)