9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for failure to realize export proceeds. - Challenge to the findings of the Adjudicating Officer. - Allegations of non-realization of export proceeds and efforts made by the appellants to recover the payment. - Change of payment terms from COD to 90 days grace period without RBI permission. - Legal interpretation of section 18(2A)(a)(i) and Rule 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974. - Consideration of reasonable steps taken by the exporter to recover payment. - Adjudication Officer's failure to consider all relevant correspondence and documents. - Exercise of discretion in imposing penalties. Analysis: The judgment by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board pertains to an appeal arising from the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants for contravening section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by failing to realize export proceeds of US $4,530 from goods exported to Finland in 1987. The Adjudicating Officer found the appellants guilty based on various grounds, including the non-realization of export proceeds, change of payment terms without RBI permission, and lack of evidence showing sincere efforts to recover the payment. The appellants challenged these findings on multiple grounds, asserting that they had taken all possible steps to recover the export proceeds, including approaching their bankers, the RBI, and the Ambassador of India in Finland. They argued that the change in payment terms was necessitated by business interests and that they had made continuous efforts to resolve the issue, contrary to the Adjudicating Officer's conclusions. The Board analyzed the legal provisions under section 18(2A)(a)(i) and Rule 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974, emphasizing that a mere change in payment terms may not necessarily indicate a lack of effort to realize export proceeds. It highlighted that steps taken must align with statutory provisions to be considered reasonable under section 18(3). Furthermore, the Board noted discrepancies in the Adjudicating Officer's consideration of correspondence and documents provided by the appellants, indicating a failure to assess all relevant facts before imposing the penalty. The Board emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of all evidence and a judicious exercise of discretion in penalty imposition. Consequently, the Board remanded both appeals to the Adjudicating Officer for a fresh order within three months, directing a reevaluation of the case in light of all evidence presented. Failure to comply would result in the refund of the penalty deposited by the appellant. The parties were granted a fresh opportunity to produce additional evidence, ensuring a fair and just conclusion based on a thorough examination of the facts.
|
