9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Denial of being the person responsible under section 68(1) by the appellant. 3. Consideration of evidence regarding handling of company's financial affairs. 4. Vitiating proceedings by hearing co-accused without giving opportunity to the appellant. 5. Remand for fresh finding on identifying the director responsible for contravention. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal against an adjudication order imposing penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant contested the imposition of penalties, denying being the person responsible under section 68(1). The appeal raised concerns about the handling of the company's financial affairs and the responsibility for contravention. The Adjudicating Officer had exonerated one director but found the appellant liable, prompting the appellant to present evidence regarding the handling of the company's accounts by another director. The appellant argued that the evidence was crucial in determining who handled payments on behalf of the company, emphasizing the importance of objective evidence in such cases. The appellant further contended that the proceedings were tainted as the Adjudicating Officer heard the co-accused without allowing the appellant to counter the arguments made. This raised procedural fairness issues, especially concerning the determination of responsibility for the payments to foreign suppliers. The respondent argued that a fresh finding was necessary, suggesting that both directors should be re-evaluated to identify the responsible party accurately. The Board acknowledged the merit in this suggestion and decided to set aside the previous order, remanding the case for a fresh determination on identifying the director responsible for the contravention and subsequent penalties under section 68(1). In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering objective evidence in adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It also underscores the significance of procedural fairness in hearings involving multiple accused parties. The decision to remand the case for a fresh finding demonstrates the commitment to ensuring a thorough and accurate assessment of liability in matters concerning contraventions of financial regulations.
|
