9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty imposed for non-realization of export proceeds under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act Analysis: The appeal involved a penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for not realizing the outstanding proceeds of exports made in March 1991. The penalty was imposed based on an Adjudication Order, which also penalized the second appellant for being responsible for the export activities. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the facts were misrepresented, and the evidence provided to the Adjudicating Officer was not considered. The appellant contended that efforts were made to realize the outstanding amount, including communication with the bank and the Indian High Commission in Bangladesh. The appellant also highlighted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was considering the write-off of the outstanding balance, as evidenced by a letter directing the appellant's bank to dispose of the case. The respondent, representing the authorities, argued that the RBI's letter referred to a specific provision in the Exchange Control Manual regarding the reduction of export value, which did not align with the appellant's situation where 20% of the total export value remained outstanding. After considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the case record, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. It was noted that the Adjudicating Officer failed to consider the documentary evidence demonstrating the appellant's efforts to recover the outstanding amount. The tribunal observed that the appellant had acted diligently by reporting the issue to RBI, seeking extensions, and attempting to trace the foreign party through diplomatic channels. The RBI's directive to dispose of the application for write-off was also analyzed, with the tribunal emphasizing that non-realization alone does not constitute a contravention of the Act. In light of the arguments presented and the RBI's directive, both parties agreed during oral submissions that the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication after the appellant's bank disposes of the write-off application. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and observations made, decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Officer was instructed to consider the RBI's advice and the steps taken by the appellant in recovering the outstanding amount before making a new determination. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
|
