9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 without adequate opportunity for defense. 2. Lack of proper investigation by the department before issuing the show-cause notice. 3. Requirement of pre-deposit of penalties. 4. Interpretation of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act regarding realisation of export proceeds. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to appeals against an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to defend themselves as an adjournment request due to medical reasons was not considered, leading to an ex parte order. The appellants had made efforts for realisation of export proceeds, interacting with authorities, but were not able to present evidence before the Adjudicating Officer. The Chairman found merit in the appellant's contention of inadequate opportunity for defense and waived the pre-deposit requirement, ordering a fresh adjudication. 2. The judgment highlights the lack of proper investigation by the department before issuing the show-cause notice. The appellants contended that evidence of interactions with the RBI and authorized dealer, including permissions and extensions granted, were not adequately considered by the Adjudicating Officer. The Chairman agreed that the case warranted a fresh adjudication due to the failure to discuss crucial evidence, such as RBI permissions and lost remittance cheques, necessitating a more thorough investigation by the department. 3. Regarding the requirement of pre-deposit of penalties, the Chairman waived this condition considering the circumstances and the need for a fresh adjudication. The appellants were relieved from pre-deposit to avoid undue hardship, indicating a fair approach towards ensuring a just process for the appellants. 4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act concerning the realisation of export proceeds. It emphasizes the burden on the department to prove non-extension of time or write-off by the RBI and the exporter's obligation to demonstrate reasonable steps taken for realisation. The Chairman elucidates that non-realisation alone is not punishable; the exporter must prove reasonable efforts in line with what a prudent exporter would do in similar circumstances. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for proving contravention under the Act and sets the criteria for negating the presumption under section 18(3). In conclusion, the judgment allows the appeals, sets aside the impugned order, and remands the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair process, proper investigation, and adherence to legal standards in determining contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
|
