9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 - Failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds. Responsibility of the appellant as Managing Director of the noticee company. Vicarious liability of the appellant under Section 68 of FER Act, 1973. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on the appellant for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. The appellant contested the order, claiming lack of evidence to prove his role in the export business of the noticee company. The appellant argued for quashing the order due to the absence of proof of the requisite ingredients of the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant, as the Managing Director of the noticee company, was responsible for the export proceeds and thus liable under the FER Act, 1973. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The appellant denied actively managing the export business of the noticee company during his tenure as Managing Director. However, the Tribunal noted that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim, and mere assertions were not enough to disprove the appellant's responsibility. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that a Managing Director is typically in charge of a company and responsible for its business conduct. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of necessary averments in establishing vicarious liability and the need for such allegations to be clearly outlined in the complaint. Referring to the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant, the Tribunal found that it clearly charged the appellant with vicarious liability for the company's actions. Despite being aware of his position and the allegations against him, the appellant failed to provide any evidence to refute his responsibility for the export proceeds. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of disclosing internal management arrangements, especially in cases involving potential criminal liability. It was noted that the appellant did not avail himself of the escape route provided in the Act, further strengthening the case for his liability. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that it did not contain any errors and should be maintained. The appeal was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the matter and the appellant's failure to provide necessary disclosures regarding the management of the noticee company, leading to the rejection of his arguments against liability under Section 68 of FER Act, 1973.
|
