9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing appeals under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Condonation of delay in filing Appeal No. 405 of 1986. 3. Non-deposit of penalty amount in Appeal No. 405 of 1986. 4. Realization of export proceeds and failure to deposit penalty in Appeal No. 346 of 1986. 5. Contravention of section 18(2) read with Central Government Notification No. F. 1/67/EC/733 dated 1-1-1974. 6. Challenges to the legality of the order in the memorandum of appeal. 7. Dismissal of appeals due to time-barred filing and failure to deposit penalty amount. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns multiple appeals arising from the same Adjudication Order, all addressed together. The Respondent's representative, Dr. Shamsuddin, highlighted the service of hearing notices to the Appellants as per the rules. With no appearance or communication from the Appellants, Dr. Shamsuddin requested consideration ex parte, which was accepted based on legal requirements. 2. In Appeal No. 444 of 1986, the filing exceeded the 90-day limit under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, leading to dismissal as time-barred. Appeal No. 405 of 1986 faced a challenge for delay beyond 45 days, with the Appellant's reasons deemed insufficient for condonation. Moreover, the Appellant's plea for dispensation of the penalty amount was refuted due to lack of financial soundness. 3. Appeal No. 346 of 1986, although timely filed, lacked the deposit of a penalty amount, leading to a call for dismissal. The Appellant's failure to take necessary steps for export proceeds realization, including obtaining RBI permissions, was highlighted, justifying the dismissal. 4. The appeals involved contraventions of section 18(2) in not realizing export proceeds, as detailed in the four GRI forms specified. The Appellants' explanations for non-realization were scrutinized, with emphasis on the statutory presumption arising from non-realization under section 18(3). 5. The partners challenged the order's legality, attributing non-realization to factors beyond their control. However, the failure to fulfill statutory obligations, such as obtaining RBI permissions, was noted, shifting the onus on the Appellants to prove compliance, which they failed to do. 6. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed for various reasons, including time-barred filing, failure to deposit penalties, and non-compliance with statutory requirements for export proceeds realization. The Appellants' lack of merit in their submissions and failure to discharge the onus under section 18 led to the dismissal of all three appeals. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi.
|
