9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of provision of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 regarding failure to submit proof of import of goods against remittance of foreign exchange; Delay in filing the appeal beyond the limitation period. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant argued that the remittance of foreign exchange was utilized for importing goods, supported by letters from the authorized banker confirming the submission of necessary documents. The appellant contended that it fulfilled its legal obligations under the Act. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court judgment stating that failure to file proof against import of goods in exchange for foreign exchange should not attract penalties. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appeal was filed after the expiration of the 45-day limitation period, making it liable for dismissal. The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing the potential injustice if the appeal was not heard. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the limitation period but emphasized that justice should not be denied due to procedural delays. The delay was explained to some extent, leading to the condonation of the delay despite opposition. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed imported goods against the remittance of foreign exchange and had submitted proof to the authorized banker. As a result, the contravention of the Act was deemed unfounded, leading to the quashing of the Adjudication Order and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling legal obligations under the Act and the need for timely filing of appeals within the prescribed limitation period.
|
