9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of FERA provisions - contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) & 9(1)(d) Non-compliance with pre-deposit of penalty amount for filing appeal Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of FERA provisions. The appellant, Shaikh Mohd. Ismail Adam, received and made payments without permission from RBI, leading to the penalty. The appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order despite being directed to pay 20% of the penalty amount. The respondent argued for dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with the High Court order as per Section 52(2) of the FER Act. The FERA provisions require appellants to file an appeal along with the penalty amount unless dispensation is granted. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case, Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs, where non-compliance with deposit requirements led to rejection of the appeal. Although Section 52 does not explicitly mention rejection for non-compliance, the Tribunal asserted its authority to dismiss appeals for such reasons. Despite being given over 3 years and leniency in the deposit order, the appellant failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on statutory provisions and equity considerations. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, citing statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's stance on such matters. The records of the appeal were to be archived as per the order issued.
|
