9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality, propriety, or correctness of the Adjudication Order exonerating the respondents. 2. Timeliness and justification for the delay in filing the revision petition. 3. Merits of the case concerning contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality, Propriety, or Correctness of the Adjudication Order Exonerating the Respondents: The revision petition challenges the Adjudication Order No. SDE(SSB)II/28/2004 dated 25-6-2004, which exonerated the respondents from charges of contravening section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The adjudicating authority found that the respondents took reasonable steps to repatriate export proceeds. The petition argues that the adjudicating authority erred in exonerating the respondents despite the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) declining to accord write-off against the outstanding export proceeds and the pending request for extension or waiver. 2. Timeliness and Justification for the Delay in Filing the Revision Petition: The revision petition was filed approximately 9 months after the date of the impugned order. The petitioner argued that under section 19(6) of FEMA, 1999, no limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition, thus no explanation for the delay is required. The Tribunal cited a previous order (revision petition No. 95/2002) which stated that there is no time-bar for filing a revision petition. Conversely, the respondents argued that revision powers should be exercised exceptionally and not routinely, and the petition should be filed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal noted that the delay of 9 months indicated waiver and acquiescence, citing the Latin maxim "Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (the law helps those who are watchful and do not sleep over their rights). 3. Merits of the Case Concerning Contravention of Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: Section 18(2) of FERA, 1973, stipulates that an exporter cannot do anything or refrain from doing anything which delays or prevents the recovery of export proceeds without RBI's permission. The Tribunal referenced the case of Rajnis International v. Director of Enforcement, noting that if permission from RBI is sought and granted, there is no contravention even if export proceeds are not realized. If permission is not sought or refused, the exporter must prove that all reasonable steps were taken. In this case, the respondents exported rice to Syria, which was rejected due to quality issues and subsequently sold in Russia through an agent. Part of the payment was received, but the remaining payment was lost due to the collapse of Tory Bank in Russia. The respondents provided evidence of their efforts to recover the proceeds, including obtaining RBI's permission to engage the agent and requesting a write-off after the bank's collapse. The adjudicating authority accepted these efforts as reasonable steps, thus rebutting the presumption of contravention under section 18(3). The Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority had not disregarded any evidence and had exercised judicial discretion appropriately. The revisional jurisdiction does not allow reappreciation of evidence, and the Tribunal cannot set aside the adjudicating authority's decision merely because another view is possible. Conclusion: The revision petition was dismissed due to lack of substance, inordinate delay, acquiescence, and waiver. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, finding no manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
|
