9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Failure of the appellant to realize proceeds of exports. 3. Non-appearance of the appellant during the proceedings. 4. Allegations of procedural irregularities in the adjudication proceedings. 5. Remand of the case for fresh adjudication. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rupees ten lakhs on the appellant for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty was imposed based on the appellant's alleged failure to realize the proceeds of exports made under specific GRIs listed in the show-cause notice. 2. The appellant failed to appear during the proceedings despite repeated notices. The address provided by the appellant for communication was found to be valid, and the appellant was expected to ensure receipt of communications in their absence. Consequently, the tribunal proceeded ex parte against the appellant. 3. The tribunal, after reviewing the dispensation application and the appeal memorandum, decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication due to procedural reasons. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appeal was disposed of with a final order. 4. The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including procedural irregularities in the adjudication proceedings. It was contended that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to present their case as per the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974. There were discrepancies regarding the notice of personal hearing and the timing of the adjudication process. 5. The tribunal found that the procedure adopted by the adjudicating officer did not comply with the Adjudication Proceedings & Appeal Rules, 1974. The appellant should have been given an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice before the adjudication proceedings were initiated. The tribunal emphasized the importance of following due process and considering the appellant's submissions before proceeding with adjudication. 6. The tribunal observed that the appellant could not be held guilty of contravention for exports where the goods were not received by the foreign buyer. The burden of proof regarding the receipt of goods and efforts to realize proceeds lies with the exporter. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted the necessity of establishing contravention before imposing penalties on directors under section 68(1) of the Act. 7. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication in line with the observations made by the tribunal and in accordance with the law. The adjudication file was directed to be returned to the Enforcement Directorate for further proceedings.
|
