9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of FER Act, 1973 - Penalties imposed on various appellants for contravention of different sections of the FER Act, 1973. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, delivered a judgment regarding penalties imposed on multiple appellants for violations of the FER Act, 1973. The penalties were imposed based on contraventions of specific sections of the Act. 2. The penalties included fines on partnership firms and individuals for making payments locally in India on behalf of persons resident outside India, placing sums to the credit of non-resident individuals, and making payments to foreign residents in contravention of the FER Act, 1973. 3. The appeals, dating back to 1992, were granted dispensation from making pre-deposits due to the time elapsed. The appeals were taken up for final disposal on merits, and written submissions were considered. 4. The legal representative of the appellants argued regarding the dissolution of partnerships due to the death of a partner and the lack of evidence regarding the continuation of the partnership firms. The legal heirs did not express interest in substitution. 5. The tribunal invoked adverse presumption under the Evidence Act, 1872, due to the absence of evidence regarding the continuation of the partnership firms after the death of partners. Appeals related to deceased partners were considered liable to be abated. 6. Arguments were presented by the appellants, emphasizing the business transactions conducted in the normal course of business and the power of attorney held by certain individuals to act on behalf of non-resident persons. 7. The respondent's representative contended that the deceased person had been staying mostly outside India, as evidenced by statements and records, establishing him as a person resident outside India. 8. The core issue revolved around determining whether the individuals in question were residents outside India at the relevant time, based on their business activities and residence patterns. 9. The tribunal analyzed the residency status of the individuals and the nature of transactions, concluding that contraventions of FER Act provisions were established in certain cases, leading to the dismissal of several appeals. 10. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof on the appellants to establish the legality of transactions and the residency status of the individuals involved, emphasizing the need for evidence in economic offense cases. 11. The tribunal dismissed multiple appeals for lack of merits and abated appeals related to deceased individuals. The appellants were directed to deposit balance amounts within a specified timeframe for penalty realization by the Enforcement Directorate.
|
