2017 (10) TMI 460 - AT - FEMA

Condonation of Delay - reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm lying locked and shifting of residence by the appellants as well as the chamber of the counsel of the appellant has been stated - Held that - As stated earlier, by an order dated 11th May, 2009 this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit 20% of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% within a period of 45 days from 11th May, 2009 failing which the appeal would stand dismissed on this ground alone. The appellant cannot be permitted to change its stand. The above directions of this Tribunal have not been followed by the appellant till date. No sufficient cause has been given by the appellant for not depositing the pre-deposit amount till date. It is also observed that the appellant was aware of the proceedings. As further observed that the reasons given for Condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is rather vague and devoid of merits. As such, the above appeals/applications are dismissed. No sufficient cause has been shown in the applications. The grounds taken in the applications are vague and general in nature. However, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay we still gave the offer to the appellant s counsel that in case the appellant complies with the order of this Tribunal dated 11.05.2009 and deposit 20% of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, then this Tribunal would consider the request of restoring the appeal. There was no positive response on behalf of appellant counsel for the appellant is trying to raise the stay application again by stating that the penalty has been imposed incorrectly. Thus, there is no valid justification on behalf of the appellant. As such, the application for restoration for appeal and Condonation of Delay are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 3(a), 4, 8 & 42 of FEMA, 1999 and Regulation No.5 (i) of FEMA Regulations, 2000, Condonation of delay in filing restoration application.

Analysis:
In the case, penalties were imposed on the appellants under FEMA for contravention of provisions. The appellants appealed for exemption from depositing the penalty before the appeal's merit hearing. The Tribunal initially allowed the appellants to deposit 20% of the penalty and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining 30% within 45 days. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized financial difficulty as a factor in dispensing with 50% of the penalty amount. The appellants approached the High Court for pre-deposit dispensation, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance and lack of interest shown by the appellants.

The appellants later filed an application for restoration and condonation of delay, citing lack of notice receipt due to locked premises and shifting residences. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to follow the earlier directions to deposit the penalty amount. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay in filing restoration application vague and lacking merit. Despite offering the appellants another chance to comply with the deposit requirements, no positive response was received. The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration and condonation of delay due to lack of valid justification and non-compliance with earlier orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance and lack of interest shown by the appellants. The application for restoration and condonation of delay was dismissed for vague reasons and failure to follow earlier directions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with orders and providing valid justifications in legal proceedings.