9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FERA, 1973 - Failure to submit exchange control copies of bill of entry against foreign exchange remittances - Appellant's contentions regarding licence for bonded warehouse and supply of duty-free goods - Allegations of non-submission of evidence of imports against certain remittances - Exoneration from charges for some remittances - Dispute over submission of exchange control copies of bill of entry for remaining remittances - Appellant's argument of procedural irregularity and submission of documents to authorized dealer - Comparison with precedent case of Sunil Engg. Corpn. v. Union of India. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi dealt with an appeal challenging an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravening sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973. The appellant was accused of failing to submit exchange control copies of bill of entry against specific foreign exchange remittances. The case originated from a show-cause notice issued to the appellant, prompting a response and subsequent adjudication finding the appellant guilty for non-submission of evidence of imports against certain remittances. The appellant contested the allegations, citing its licence for a bonded warehouse to supply duty-free goods to privileged persons under the Geneva Convention. The appellant argued that it followed strict procedures under Customs supervision and maintained records as required by RBI regulations. The appellant highlighted that the licence was not renewed since 1998 due to business reasons, emphasizing compliance with the licence conditions. Regarding the specific remittances in question, the appellant provided documents for all five remittances, leading to the exoneration from charges for two remittances by the Adjudicating Officer. However, despite submitting exchange control copies of bill of entries for the remaining three remittances, the adjudicating authority found the appellant guilty, questioning the correlation of amounts in the bills with the remittances. The appellant explained that the bills were sent to the authorized dealer within the stipulated period but were misplaced or lost in transit. Subsequently, the appellant presented a confirmation from the authorized dealer of receiving the exchange control copies for the three remittances and forwarding them to RBI, arguing against any contravention of FERA provisions. In its decision, the Tribunal considered the procedural irregularity as a mere omission and referred to a precedent case where a similar lapse in furnishing exchange control copies led to the quashing of the adjudicating authority's order. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided proof of import for the remaining three remittances, leading to the conclusion that the adjudicating authority erred in finding the appellant guilty of contravention. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed, with the direction for the respondent to refund the pre-deposit made by the appellant within a specified timeframe.
|
