9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge against the Adjudication Order u/s 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds. Details of the Judgment: Challenge against Adjudication Order: The appellants challenged the Adjudication Order imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. Despite multiple adjournments sought by the appellants' counsel, the appellants failed to appear or be represented, leading to the final disposal of the appeals on merit based on available records within the stipulated time frame u/s 19(5) of FEMA, 1999. Contentions of the Appellants: The appellants contended that they are partners of the noticee firm, which exported goods to the U.S.A. The appellants claimed to have taken all reasonable steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds, including personal visits and communication with the foreign buyer. They highlighted the bankruptcy of the foreign buyer and subsequent legal proceedings as reasons for non-repatriation of the full export value. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the appellants failed to provide evidence of their efforts to recover the outstanding export proceeds within the prescribed period. They argued that the appellants did not follow RBI's advice to approach for the status of outstanding amounts, and the correspondences provided were not sufficient to absolve the appellants from the contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal referred to Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, emphasizing the requirement for RBI permission to secure payment for exported goods and the presumption of non-reasonable steps taken by the exporter in case of non-recovery of payment. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to disprove the adverse presumption against them under Section 18(3) due to lack of evidence showing timely efforts to recover the export proceeds. Decision on Penalty: The Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the appellants to be appropriate considering the contravention and the amount involved. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lacking merit and directed the pre-deposited amount to be appropriated towards the penalty, with the appellants given a deadline to deposit the balance penalty amount, failing which the Enforcement Directorate would recover it in accordance with the law.
|
