1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2008 FERA APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2008 FERA APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2008 Hitendra V. Shah & Ors. ... Appellant Vs. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Madhu Patel for the appellant. Mr. R.V.Desai with Ms.Bharati Mahant & Ms. Nisha Valani for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 16th April, 2009 DATE : 16th April, 2009 DATE : 16th April, 2009. P.C P.C P.C. 1. This Appeal has been prefered by the members of the same family in respect of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange which has dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents herein. 2. The A.O. after considering the entire evidence in the order dated 21st April, 2001 in para 8(v) has held as under :- 2 "8(v) The names Vadilal P. Shah, Janhavi H. Shah, Alka H. Shah, Vasantaben V. Shah, Hitendra V. Shah and Vadilal P. Shah (noticees in the SCN under adjudication) are figuring in said list against amounts in US $ 20,000, US$ 29970.72, US$ 59911.64 (US$ 39949.42 + US$ 19962.22) US$ 19962.22 and US $ 19962.18 respectively. It has been found on investigation that they had received inward remittance of respective amounts in October, 1991." The said finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in para 21 of its order. 3. The submission on behalf of the appellants by the learned Counsel is that the law requires that it is to be established that the appellants paid monies in India in respect of which they received the foreign exchange. The fact that foreign exchange has been received is not disputed. What is contended is that there is no evidence to show that monies have been paid by the appellants to Niranjan Shah. Once the appellants faield to discharge the burden as to the sources of receiving foreign exchange, in our opinion, it ill be a reasonable inference to draw that this can be only in respect of 3 monies which the appellants had paid to Niranjan Shah who in turn received the foreign exchange. No explanation is given as to the foreign exchange received. The learned Counsel states that in case of other persons, penalty has been reduced to 20%. In our opinion, these are matters of foreign exchange and the revenue of the country is involved. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference. The Appeal is dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)