9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Contravention of provisions of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of FER Act provisions. The appellants initially challenged the pre-deposit order but complied with the High Court's directive to deposit 30% of the penalty amount. The appeals were now considered for final disposal on merits. 2. The Show-Cause Notices were issued for placing a sum to the credit of a company outside India and for acquiring and transferring foreign exchange in contravention of FER Act provisions. Investigations revealed the involvement of the director in contravention activities, leading to seizure of documents and statements recorded under FER Act. 3. The appellant argued that charges were wrongly imposed, explaining a consignment scenario and justifying the accounting entries. The written submissions emphasized misinterpretation of accounts, absence of RBI permission, and professional rivalry influencing complaints against the appellants. 4. Section 9(1)(e) prohibits placing sums to the credit of persons outside India without RBI permission. The appellant's waiver of the amount owed to a foreign entity raised questions, as unilateral actions without RBI involvement led to adverse inferences against the appellants. 5. Regarding foreign exchange acquisition and transfer, the appellant claimed to act as an agent for the company's interests. However, the documents and statements indicated direct involvement in remittances and transactions, violating FER Act restrictions under Section 8(1). 6. The maturity amount of an insurance policy was repatriated, providing relief to the appellant in one instance. Despite justifications, the tribunal found the charges under sections 9(1)(e) and 8(1) proven, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for justice in such cases. 7. The tribunal upheld the impugned order, deeming the penalty appropriate and not excessive. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the confirmed contraventions and the need for penalty payment within a specified timeframe to avoid further recovery actions by the respondent.
|
