9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 502 - HC - FEMAViolation under FERA - export proceeds were not realized - as alleged transactions A1 to A3 have contravened the provisions of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA Act, 1973 for failing to take steps to realize bill value of export proceeds and A2 and A3 abetted A1 in sending said consignments towards exports and the export proceeds were not realized, which is in violation of the said provisions of FERA - According to A1, the signatures on G.R.Forms were forged by A2, as such, she cannot be held responsible for the said exports. Export transactions are apparent and they were done on behalf of A1 s firm with the involvement of A2. A3 as the Customs House Agent had helped in the documentation for exports and received huge amounts for his services. HELD THAT - Learned Sessions Judge in appeal found that A2 was using cell phone of A3 and he has made payments to A3 by way of cheques. The said cheques are Exs.P18 to P21 in the name of A3 issued by A1 on behalf of M/s.Sai International. Since the cheques were encashed, the complicity of A3 in the transactions cannot be doubted. Such huge amounts cannot be towards services of a custom house agent. The fact remains that the acts of A1 to A3 failing to realize the default value of the export proceeds, having availed duty draw back amount from the Customs Authorities in the name of M/s.Sai International is in violation of provisions of FERA. Both the Courts below have adjudicated the case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The grounds raised by the accused cannot form basis to set aside the well reasoned judgment of Courts below and the findings regarding the culpability of the petitioners. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
Issues involved: Criminal Revision Cases filed against Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal, Violation of provisions of FERA Act, Roles of A1, A2, and A3 in export transactions, Complicity of A3 in transactions.
Summary: The Criminal Revision Cases were filed against a Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal by A1 and A3. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that A1, the proprietrix of M/s.Sai International, failed to realize export proceeds of readymade garments worth Rs.2,45,57,300. A2 and A3 were involved in the export transactions. A2 arranged for material to be exported in the name of A1's firm, promised to pay remuneration, and handled documentation. A3 assisted A2 in documentation and transactions. The prosecution claimed violations of FERA Act provisions by A1 to A3 for not realizing export proceeds and availing duty draw back amounts. A1 argued that the violations, if any, are punishable under the Customs Act and that A2 was primarily responsible for the exports. A3, as a Customs House Agent, contended that his role was limited to processing export documents. A1 denied knowledge of the exports and claimed that A2 forged signatures on G.R. Forms. The Sessions Judge found evidence of A2 using A3's cell phone and payments made to A3 via cheques issued by A1 on behalf of M/s.Sai International. The Judge concluded that A3's complicity in the transactions was evident. The failure to realize export proceeds and availing duty draw back amounts were deemed violations of FERA Act provisions. Both Courts based their decisions on oral and documentary evidence, rejecting the arguments raised by the accused. The well-reasoned judgments of the lower Courts regarding the culpability of the petitioners were upheld, leading to the dismissal of both Criminal Revision Cases.
|
