9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Contravention of Section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 3. Contravention of Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contravention of Section 8(1): The primary question was whether the appellant had "otherwise acquired" or "transferred" any foreign exchange to a person other than an authorized dealer in foreign exchange. The appellant argued that the commission was only due upon the successful completion of the contract and issuance of a no-objection certificate by SC. The adjudicating officer initially found that the appellant had contravened Section 8(1) by acquiring foreign exchange when SC remitted the commission to APA's London account. However, the appellate board concluded that the appellant had only a contingent right to the commission, which materialized only after the successful completion of the contract and SC's clearance. Therefore, the appellant did not acquire or transfer foreign exchange in contravention of Section 8(1). 2. Contravention of Section 14: The issue was whether the appellant failed to offer the acquired foreign exchange for sale to an authorized dealer within the prescribed time. The appellant contended that they had no right to the foreign exchange until SC issued the no-objection certificate. The adjudicating officer held that the appellant violated Section 14 by not offering the foreign exchange for sale within the stipulated period. However, the appellate board found that the appellant acquired the foreign exchange only in August 1987, when SC confirmed the contract's completion. The board noted that the foreign exchange was remitted to India within five days of this confirmation, well within the three months allowed under Section 14. Thus, the charge of contravention of Section 14 was not sustained. 3. Contravention of Section 47: The question was whether the agreement between the appellant and SC evaded the operation of Sections 8(1) and 14, thus violating Section 47. The adjudicating officer concluded that the agreement resulted in the evasion of these sections. However, the appellate board reasoned that since there was no contravention of Sections 8(1) and 14, Section 47 would not come into operation. The board emphasized that the agreement did not intend to evade the provisions of the Act but was a genuine business arrangement. Consequently, the charge under Section 47 was also not substantiated. Conclusion: The appellate board found that the appellant did not contravene Sections 8(1), 14, or 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appeal was allowed, and the charges against the appellant were dismissed.
|
