|
Advanced Search Options
FEMA - Case Laws
Showing 761 to 780 of 1378 Records
-
2008 (8) TMI 1032
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 29(1)(b) read with 49(1), 72(3), and 58 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).
2. Non-compliance with Para 10C.21 of the Exchange Control Manual (ECM) of RBI.
3. Legality of increasing the penalty amount without an appeal or revision by the Enforcement Directorate.
4. Applicability of statutory directions and the interpretation of statutes.
5. Authority of the Tribunal to enhance penalties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Section 29(1)(b) read with 49(1), 72(3), and 58 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA):
The appellants were penalized for purchasing shares of Steel Authority of India without taking delivery, thus violating Section 29(1)(b) of FERA. The Tribunal noted that the appellant company, an Overseas Corporate Body registered in Mauritius, had purchased shares on credit without taking delivery, which contravened the conditions prescribed under Para 10C.21 of the ECM. Despite the appellants' argument that the broker failed to deliver the shares, the Tribunal held that the non-resident person (appellant company) failed to take delivery, thus violating the general condition under Para 10C.21(c)(v).
2. Non-compliance with Para 10C.21 of the Exchange Control Manual (ECM) of RBI:
The Tribunal emphasized that Para 10C.21(c)(v) of the ECM mandates that overseas persons must take delivery of the shares if purchased. The appellants argued that no specific period for delivery was prescribed and that the ECM did not contain statutory directions. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that a legal duty was created, and the reasonable time for performance of this duty could be inferred. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants failed to produce the RBI's approval, leading to an adverse inference against them.
3. Legality of increasing the penalty amount without an appeal or revision by the Enforcement Directorate:
The Tribunal addressed the argument that the penalty amount could not be increased in the absence of an appeal or revision by the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal held that it had the authority to suo moto examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of any adjudication order under Section 52(4) of the FERA. The Tribunal emphasized that undue sympathy in imposing inadequate penalties could undermine the economic well-being of the country and that the quantum of penalty must create a deterrent effect.
4. Applicability of statutory directions and the interpretation of statutes:
The Tribunal discussed the interpretation of statutes, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 29(1)(b) of FERA clearly prohibit the purchase of shares in India by any person residing outside India without RBI permission. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to produce the RBI's permission, and thus, the violation was clearly made out. The Tribunal also referred to various judgments to support the principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted plainly and unambiguously.
5. Authority of the Tribunal to enhance penalties:
The Tribunal referred to the definitions of "modify" in Black's Law Dictionary and Prem's Judicial Dictionary, concluding that it had the authority to increase the penalty even in the absence of an appeal or revision by the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 crores each against the two appellants, which was roughly double the amount involved in the contravention. The Tribunal justified this increase to ensure that the penalty had a deterrent effect and to avoid perpetuating injustice.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the penalties against both appellants were increased to Rs. 2 crores each. The appellants were ordered to deposit the penalties within a week from the receipt of the order, failing which the Enforcement Directorate could recover the same in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (8) TMI 1031
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c), and 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Admissibility and relevance of evidence and documents.
3. Burden of proof regarding the non-residential status of N.C. Rangesh.
4. Alleged procedural lapses and fairness of the adjudication process.
5. Quantum of penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Provisions of Section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c), and 9(1)(e) of FERA, 1973:
The appellants were charged with acknowledging a debt, placing a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 to the credit of N.C. Rangesh, a person resident outside India, and making payments of Rs. 1,26,000 and Rs. 90,000 towards interest without any general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India. The judgment confirms that the appellants took a loan of Rs. 12,00,000 from N.C. Rangesh and repaid it, acknowledging the debt and making payments to a person resident outside India, thus violating section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c), and 9(1)(e).
2. Admissibility and Relevance of Evidence and Documents:
The appellants argued that the documents recovered from M/s. Micam Leather Exports Ltd. were not admissible as they were not jointly proceeded against for the same cause of action. However, the tribunal found that the documents and statements from third parties were admissible and relevant, as they established the non-residential status of N.C. Rangesh and the association between the appellants and N.C. Rangesh.
3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Non-Residential Status of N.C. Rangesh:
The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving the non-residential status of N.C. Rangesh was on the respondent, which was adequately discharged through various documents and statements. The appellants' contention that they were unaware of N.C. Rangesh's non-residential status was not accepted, given their long association and the evidence on record.
4. Alleged Procedural Lapses and Fairness of the Adjudication Process:
The appellants claimed that the adjudication process was unfair, as they were not allowed to cross-examine third parties, and the show-cause notice was vague. The tribunal dismissed these claims, stating that the appellants were given full opportunity to appear before the Enforcement Directorate but deliberately avoided it. The show-cause notice was found to be specific, detailing the violations and charges against the appellants.
5. Quantum of Penalty Imposed:
The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on M/s. Associated Builders and Developers and H. Ameer, finding them commensurate with the gravity of the offense. However, the penalty against K.M. Riyasuddin was reduced to 50% of the original amount, considering his role as an agent of the other appellants. The appeals of M/s. Associated Builders and Developers and H. Ameer were dismissed, while the appeal of K.M. Riyasuddin was partly allowed.
Conclusion:
The tribunal confirmed the contraventions of section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c), and 9(1)(e) of FERA, 1973, by the appellants, upheld the penalties imposed on M/s. Associated Builders and Developers and H. Ameer, and reduced the penalty on K.M. Riyasuddin. The pre-deposited amount was ordered to be appropriated towards the penalty.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1125
Issues:
1. Contravention of provisions of FERA, 1973 - Sections 9(1)(b) & 9(1)(a).
2. Validity of confessional statements and their retraction.
3. Corroboration of evidence to prove charges.
4. Prohibition of transactions under FERA, 1973 - Section 9(1)(b) & 9(1)(a).
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of FERA provisions. The appellant had received payment on behalf of an NRI and made payments to a person resident outside India without RBI permission. The appellant deposited the penalty amount but did not appear for the appeal, indicating lack of interest. Investigations revealed misuse of NRE accounts, with the appellant facilitating transactions. The appellant admitted arranging a draft and receiving payment for the NRI, leading to contravention of FERA sections. The confessional statements were corroborated by recipient statements and retraction lacked supporting evidence.
2. The Supreme Court's observations emphasized the voluntary nature of statements for validity. The appellant's admission, along with corroborative evidence, created a strong case against him. The retracted confessional statement, without proof of coercion, held weight in establishing guilt. The court may rely on retracted confessions if corroborated adequately. In this case, the admission and corroborative evidence formed a substantial basis for proving the charges.
3. The appellant's actions in delivering a draft and handling payments for the NRI violated FERA provisions. The significant amount involved was deemed a gift, but lack of acquaintance between parties raised suspicions. The appellant's role in the transaction, without proper justification, indicated guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Adjudicating Officer's decision was upheld as the impugned order stood judicial scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's guilt and appropriating the pre-deposited amount towards the penalty.
4. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of contravening FERA provisions, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and adherence to regulations. The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of unauthorized international transactions and the importance of compliance with foreign exchange laws to avoid penalties and legal actions.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1124
Issues:
- Violation of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
- Adequacy of evidence and corroboration in establishing guilt.
- Admissibility of co-noticee's statement as evidence.
- Validity of confessional statement obtained from the appellant.
- Compliance with principles of natural justice regarding cross-examination.
- Quantum of penalty imposed.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi involved an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, Hardeep Singh, was charged with violating section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act by acquiring foreign exchange without permission. The appeal raised concerns about lack of opportunity to defend, insufficiency of evidence, and contradictions in statements. The appellant's association with Malkiat Singh Multani, who admitted illegal foreign exchange dealings, was a key point of contention.
The Tribunal examined the evidence, including statements from Enforcement Officers and co-noticee Malkiat Singh. It found that the appellant's admission of selling foreign exchange to Malkiat Singh was corroborated by Malkiat Singh's statement. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of coercion in obtaining his statement, citing the burden of proof on the appellant. It referenced legal precedents to support the admissibility of retracted confessional statements under certain conditions.
Regarding the right to cross-examine the co-noticee, the Tribunal emphasized that natural justice principles were not violated as sufficient justification was lacking. It cited a Supreme Court ruling to support this stance. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the charges against the appellant under section 8(1) and 8(2) were proven, leading to a guilty verdict. However, considering the appellant's circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 92,500 to Rs. 60,000 to achieve justice, with instructions for penalty payment within a specified timeframe.
In summary, the judgment addressed issues of evidence sufficiency, admissibility of statements, compliance with natural justice principles, and penalty imposition, ultimately upholding the guilt of the appellant while modifying the penalty amount in consideration of the appellant's situation.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1123
Issues:
Violation of provisions of FERA - Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d)
Appellant's denial of involvement in illegal payments
Confirmation of handwriting on seized documents
Evidence of recipients admitting to receiving payments
Analysis of the burden of proof in economic offences
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi involved an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973. The appellant, Shri. Khaja Qutubuddin Afzal, was found to have received and made payments totaling Rs. 35,72,000 without RBI permission, leading to the confiscation of a portion of the amount. The appellant contested the charges, claiming innocence and denial of knowledge regarding the seized documents. However, the Govt. Examiner confirmed the appellant's handwriting on the documents, supporting the charges against him.
The appellant's defense included statements about being an agriculturist and having a misunderstanding with his uncle who allegedly orchestrated the case against him. Despite the appellant's denial, evidence from seized documents and statements of recipients incriminated him. The Enforcement Officers confirmed the handwriting match and identified the appellant as the deliverer of money. The recovery of substantial amounts without a valid source further strengthened the case against the appellant.
The judgment emphasized the burden of proof in economic offenses, stating that while proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary, it does not require mathematical precision. Quoting a Supreme Court case, the judgment highlighted the need for establishing a degree of probability for conviction in such cases. The Tribunal found the charges under Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) proven against the appellant, dismissing his appeal and upholding the penalty. The appellant was directed to pay the balance amount within a specified time frame, failing which the respondent could recover it according to the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1122
Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing a penalty
- Non-compliance with the order for pre-deposit of penalty amount
- Lack of appearance or representation by the appellant
- Legal provisions regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount for filing an appeal
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, despite being directed to make a partial payment of the penalty amount within a specified period, failed to comply even after six months. The appellant did not appear or have any representation during the proceedings, indicating a lack of bonafide on their part. The legal provision under Section 52(2) of FERA, 1973, mandates the pre-deposit of the penalty amount for filing an appeal, unless dispensation is granted due to undue hardship. In this case, the appellant neither appeared nor informed the Tribunal about compliance with the order. The appellant's failure to comply, despite leniency shown by the Tribunal, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following statutory requirements and timely compliance with judicial orders to proceed with an appeal.
The Tribunal highlighted the statutory obligation of appellants to file an appeal along with the penalty amount, unless dispensation is granted due to undue hardship. The appellant's non-compliance with the order for pre-deposit of the penalty amount was considered a condition precedent to proceeding with the appeal. Despite leniency shown by the Tribunal in dispensing with a portion of the penalty amount and providing sufficient time for compliance, the appellant failed to adhere to the judicial order. The lack of representation or communication from the appellant during the proceedings further demonstrated a lack of bonafide on their part. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to legal requirements and complying with judicial orders to maintain the integrity of the appeal process.
The Tribunal, in accordance with the statutory scheme, dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement of the penalty amount. The appellant's lack of appearance or representation, coupled with the non-compliance with the judicial order despite leniency shown, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding legal obligations and following procedural requirements to ensure the proper adjudication of appeals. The record of the appeal was directed to be consigned to the Record Room following the dismissal order.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1121
Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
- Compliance with pre-deposit order
- Waiver granted by RBI for unrecovered export price
- Interpretation of section 18(2) and section 18(3) of FER Act, 1973
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi pertains to three appeals challenging an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The order imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 on the appellant-company and Rs. 2,50,000 each on two other appellants for failure to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds, as per section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973. The Tribunal had earlier allowed the appellant-company to make a pre-deposit of 10% penalty, with full dispensation for the other appellants, and now the appeals were taken up for final disposal on merits.
The crux of the argument presented by the appellant's counsel was that the RBI had granted a waiver of the unrecovered export price in accordance with section 18(2) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant submitted letters from Oriental Bank of Commerce to support this claim. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that discrepancies in the letters from the bank regarding the description of GR numbers and amounts cast doubt on the waiver claim. The respondent supported the impugned order based on these discrepancies.
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 18(2) and section 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973, which deal with payments for exported goods and restrictions on actions without RBI permission. The Tribunal noted that the legislation grants the RBI the power to waive unrecovered export prices. Upon examining the letters from Oriental Bank of Commerce, the Tribunal found that while there were discrepancies in the description of amounts in some letters, the overall consistency in GR numbers covered in the written-off amounts was maintained. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the discrepancies did not impact the essence of the waiver granted by the RBI.
In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeals on their merits and quashed the impugned order imposing penalties. The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in the bank letters did not invalidate the waiver granted by the RBI under section 18(2) of the FER Act, 1973. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1120
Issues:
Violation of FER Act, 1973 - Penalties imposed on various appellants for contravention of different sections of the FER Act, 1973.
Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, delivered a judgment regarding penalties imposed on multiple appellants for violations of the FER Act, 1973. The penalties were imposed based on contraventions of specific sections of the Act.
2. The penalties included fines on partnership firms and individuals for making payments locally in India on behalf of persons resident outside India, placing sums to the credit of non-resident individuals, and making payments to foreign residents in contravention of the FER Act, 1973.
3. The appeals, dating back to 1992, were granted dispensation from making pre-deposits due to the time elapsed. The appeals were taken up for final disposal on merits, and written submissions were considered.
4. The legal representative of the appellants argued regarding the dissolution of partnerships due to the death of a partner and the lack of evidence regarding the continuation of the partnership firms. The legal heirs did not express interest in substitution.
5. The tribunal invoked adverse presumption under the Evidence Act, 1872, due to the absence of evidence regarding the continuation of the partnership firms after the death of partners. Appeals related to deceased partners were considered liable to be abated.
6. Arguments were presented by the appellants, emphasizing the business transactions conducted in the normal course of business and the power of attorney held by certain individuals to act on behalf of non-resident persons.
7. The respondent's representative contended that the deceased person had been staying mostly outside India, as evidenced by statements and records, establishing him as a person resident outside India.
8. The core issue revolved around determining whether the individuals in question were residents outside India at the relevant time, based on their business activities and residence patterns.
9. The tribunal analyzed the residency status of the individuals and the nature of transactions, concluding that contraventions of FER Act provisions were established in certain cases, leading to the dismissal of several appeals.
10. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof on the appellants to establish the legality of transactions and the residency status of the individuals involved, emphasizing the need for evidence in economic offense cases.
11. The tribunal dismissed multiple appeals for lack of merits and abated appeals related to deceased individuals. The appellants were directed to deposit balance amounts within a specified timeframe for penalty realization by the Enforcement Directorate.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1119
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange.
2. Compliance with Section 8(3) and Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act, 1973.
3. Burden of proof and presumption of culpable mental state.
4. Vicarious liability of individual directors.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange:
The appellant company was penalized for failing to provide evidence of utilizing the foreign exchange remitted to M/s TRES Corporation, Taiwan, in contravention of Section 8(3) r/w Section 68 of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant contended that the remittance was for technical know-how under an RBI-approved collaboration agreement, and the technology was used to import and export goods. However, the respondent argued that investigations revealed no transfer of technology or training occurred after the remittance.
2. Compliance with Section 8(3) and Section 68 of the FER Act, 1973:
Section 8(3) mandates that foreign exchange acquired for a specific purpose must not be used otherwise. The Tribunal noted that the appellant company's claim of receiving know-how and training was unsupported by evidence, especially since the agreement stipulated delivery of technical documents only after full payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to demonstrate the actual utilization of the foreign exchange.
3. Burden of proof and presumption of culpable mental state:
The Tribunal referred to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of a person on that person. The Tribunal cited precedents, including Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra and Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull, to highlight that the prosecution need not prove its case with mathematical precision. The appellant's failure to provide evidence of utilizing the foreign exchange led to an adverse inference against them. Additionally, Section 59 of the FER Act presumes a culpable mental state, and Section 71(2) places the burden of proof on the person prosecuted to show that the foreign exchange was used for the permitted purpose.
4. Vicarious liability of individual directors:
The Show Cause Notice clearly indicated that the individual appellant was responsible for the company's conduct during the relevant period. The Tribunal noted that no efforts were made to counter the charges against the individual director. Citing Everest Advertising (P.) Ltd. v. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, the Tribunal emphasized that vicarious liability requires proof that the individual was both in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions. The pre-deposited penalty amounts were appropriated, and the appellants were directed to pay the remaining penalties within seven days, failing which the Enforcement Directorate would recover the amounts in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1118
The appeal was filed against a penalty imposed for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order despite leniency shown by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and the record was consigned to the Record Room.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1117
The appeals were filed against a penalty order for failure to provide proof of foreign exchange utilization. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to delay in filing beyond 90 days and non-compliance with the order to make a pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional judicial order.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1116
Issues:
Challenge to Adjudication Order imposing penalty for failure to realize and repatriate export proceeds in contravention of FER Act, 1973.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for failure to realize and repatriate export proceeds in contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973. Despite being permitted to deposit a certain amount within 60 days, the appellants failed to appear or be represented, leading to the disposal of the appeal on merit based on available records within the stipulated time frame under FEMA, 1999.
2. The appellants contended that they took all reasonable steps to realize outstanding export proceeds, citing various challenges faced such as delay in shipment and bankruptcy of foreign buyers. They approached the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for write-off after pursuing the outstanding amount diligently. However, the respondent argued that the appellants failed to prove their efforts within the prescribed period and did not follow RBI's advice to approach for the status of outstanding payments, leading to a clear contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act.
3. The legal analysis of sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act highlighted the requirement for RBI permission to secure payment for exported goods and the adverse legal presumption against exporters failing to take reasonable steps to recover proceeds. The judgment cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the subjective nature of "reasonable" actions in such cases.
4. The tribunal found that the appellants' actions did not displace the adverse presumption against them under section 18(3) as they failed to provide evidence of timely efforts to recover export proceeds within the prescribed period. The failure to approach relevant authorities like the Indian Embassy or RBI earlier, coupled with the lack of granted write-off, supported the decision to uphold the penalty imposed.
5. Regarding the quantum of penalty, the tribunal deemed it appropriate given the contravention and the penalty amount in relation to the offense. The penalty was considered neither harsh nor excessive, warranting no intervention by the tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit, with the pre-deposited amount to be appropriated towards the penalty, and the appellants were directed to deposit the remaining penalty within a specified timeframe.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal provisions applied, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1115
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Validity of the evidence and documents seized.
3. Applicability of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991.
4. Burden of proof and circumstantial evidence.
5. Quantum of penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
The appellants were penalized for making payments to Niranjan J. Shah without the general or special exemption from the RBI, in consideration for the acquisition of US dollars outside India. The tribunal confirmed that the appellants had contravened Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA, 1973, by making payments in Indian Rupees to Niranjan Shah, who arranged for foreign exchange outside India.
2. Validity of the evidence and documents seized:
The investigation initiated by the Income Tax Department led to the seizure of documents and computer floppies from Niranjan Shah's residence, which indicated transactions between the appellants and Niranjan Shah. The documents included account details under "Niranjan's $ A/c" and a list of 36 persons, including the appellants, who received remittances. The tribunal found that the seized documents and the interconnected transactions were valid evidence to establish the contravention.
3. Applicability of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991:
The appellants claimed immunity under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991, asserting that the remittances were gifts declared in their income tax returns. However, the tribunal held that the statutory declarations of gift cheques and their acceptance by the bank and income tax officers could not override the provisions of FERA. The scheme did not apply to the facts of this case, as the appellants failed to prove that the foreign exchange was received as a gift without consideration.
4. Burden of proof and circumstantial evidence:
The tribunal emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the appellants. It referred to several Supreme Court judgments, highlighting that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt. The tribunal concluded that the appellants failed to discharge their burden of proving that the foreign exchange was received as a gift without any consideration. The presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and the principle of special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act were applied against the appellants.
5. Quantum of penalty imposed:
The tribunal considered the gravity of the charges and the substantial amount involved in the contravention. Although the appellants argued for a reduction in the penalty based on a previous tribunal judgment, the tribunal decided to reduce the penalty to 75% of the total imposed amount, considering that the amount was declared with the income tax assessing officers and was not meant for hawala payments. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance amount within 15 days, failing which the respondent could recover the same in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the charges against the appellants for contravening Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA, 1973, based on valid evidence and circumstantial proof. The applicability of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991, was rejected, and the burden of proof lay with the appellants, which they failed to discharge. The penalty was reduced to 75% of the total amount, considering the specific circumstances of the case.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1114
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty imposed for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds.
2. Interpretation of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973.
3. Application of legal principles regarding regulatory offenses and purposive construction.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against a penalty imposed on the appellant for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds, contravening Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant, a partner of M/s S.K. Works, exported garments to U.S. buyers but could not recover payments due to various reasons, including the foreign buyer's bankruptcy. The appellant contended that all reasonable steps were taken to recover the outstanding proceeds, including approaching the RBI for write-off. The respondent argued that the appellant continued exporting goods without taking steps to recover the payments, establishing a contravention of the Act.
2. Section 18(2) of the FER Act prohibits actions that delay payment for exported goods without RBI permission. Section 18(3) creates a presumption of non-compliance if payment is not received within the prescribed period. The Tribunal noted that substantial amounts were still outstanding, and the appellant's argument that certain GRs were eligible for write-off under RBI circular was not tenable in the proceedings. The appellant's argument that contravention must be deliberate for penalty imposition was rejected, citing various case laws.
3. The Tribunal emphasized the regulatory nature of the FER Act, aimed at conserving foreign exchange resources. It highlighted the need for a purposive construction of the Act to protect the Indian economy. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that penalties under the Act do not require deliberate contravention but strict compliance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty and directing the appellant to pay the balance amount within a specified period, failing which enforcement action would be taken.
This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the application of regulatory principles in deciding the appeal against the penalty imposed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1113
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2) read with 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Validity of the statements and retraction by the appellant.
3. Delay in issuing the second Show Cause Notice (SCN).
4. Reliance on documents and statements of co-accused.
5. Definition and application of abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2) read with 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
The appellants were charged with acquiring and converting Bangladesh Taka into Indian currency without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), contravening Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The first Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 26.09.94 alleged that the appellants acquired Bangladesh Taka equivalent to Rs. 3,90,147, including a seized amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, and converted it at rates not prescribed by the RBI. The second SCN dated 04.05.02 alleged the acquisition of Bangladesh Taka equivalent to Rs. 22 lakhs and its conversion into Indian currency.
2. Validity of the Statements and Retraction by the Appellant:
The appellant S.N. Tambakuwala's statement was recorded under Section 40 of FERA, admitting involvement in the illegal currency transactions. He later retracted his statement, alleging coercion and threat. However, the Tribunal found the retraction unsubstantiated, noting that the appellant failed to link his injuries to the alleged coercion and did not follow up with any specific complaints. The Supreme Court's observations in KTMS Mohd v. UOI and K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, were cited, emphasizing that the burden of proving coercion lies on the appellant, which was not discharged in this case.
3. Delay in Issuing the Second Show Cause Notice (SCN):
The second SCN was issued after a delay of about 8 years. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention that the delay prejudiced their rights, noting that there is no bar of limitation for taking cognizance of such offences under FERA. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observations in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, highlighting that delays by the State, due to bureaucratic processes, should not be equated with delays by individuals, particularly in cases involving national interest.
4. Reliance on Documents and Statements of Co-Accused:
The appellants argued that the loose sheets recovered from S.N. Tambakuwala's custody were not reliable evidence. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, noting that the transactions were shrouded in secrecy, and detailed accounts were not expected. The seized documents were corroborated by circumstantial evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the use of statements by co-accused, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Naresh Sukhawani v. Union of India, which allows such statements as substantive evidence if they inculpate both the maker and another person.
5. Definition and Application of Abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
S.N. Tambakuwala was charged with abetting the contraventions committed by his maternal uncles, Surendra Kumar Sah and Shyam Sunder Sah. The Tribunal referred to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and the Supreme Court's observations in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mukesh, explaining that abetment involves active complicity. The Tribunal found that S.N. Tambakuwala's actions facilitated the illegal transactions, thus constituting abetment. The Tribunal also referred to the Maharashtra Control for Organised Crime Act, 1999, to emphasize that assistance to organized crime syndicates constitutes abetment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, finding the appellants guilty of contravening the provisions of FERA. The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to deposit the balance penalty amount within 15 days. The Tribunal's decision was based on substantial evidence, including corroborated statements and seized documents, and it emphasized the importance of addressing economic offences to protect national interests.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1112
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act.
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of admissional statements.
3. Corroboration of retracted statements.
4. Burden of proof and standard of proof.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(1) of the FER Act:
The appellants were penalized for making payments in Indian currency amounting to Rs. 6,42,721 to Niranjan J. Shah as consideration for the acquisition of foreign currency (US dollars) outside India without any general or special permission from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The penalties imposed were Rs. 1,65,000 each. The adjudication order No. ADJ/94/B/SDE/PKA/2001 dated 24-4-2001 by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate was challenged in these appeals.
2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Admissional Statements:
The appellant in appeal No. 250/01 admitted to receiving foreign currency in lieu of Indian currency. The Tribunal held that admissional statements made before officials of the Enforcement Directorate are admissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, as these officials are not considered police officers. The Tribunal emphasized that mere allegations of threat and coercion are insufficient without some evidence to support such claims. The Tribunal referenced K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India [1992] 3 SCC 178, stating that the voluntary nature of any statement is crucial, and retraction alone does not render a statement involuntary or unlawfully obtained.
3. Corroboration of Retracted Statements:
The Tribunal held that retracted admissional statements are admissible and can be relied upon to determine guilt. The Tribunal cited K.J. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin [1997] 3 SCC 721, which established that retracted confessions can be used to prove the prosecution's case if they are found to be voluntary and true. The Tribunal also referenced Naresh J. Sukhwani v. Union of India 1996 SCC (Cri.) 76, which held that statements recorded by Customs officials can be used against a co-noticee if the person making the statement admits guilt.
4. Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof:
The Tribunal reiterated that the standard of proof in quasi-criminal proceedings does not require mathematical precision. It cited Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull AIR 1974 SC 859, which stated that the prosecution need only establish a degree of probability that a prudent person would believe in the existence of the fact in issue. The Tribunal also referenced State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar [2000] 8 SCC 382, which discussed the burden of proof when certain facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants were correctly found guilty of contravening the FER Act. The penalty amount was deemed reasonable and correct, and the pre-deposited penalty amounts were appropriated towards the penalties. The impugned adjudication orders were sustained and maintained.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1111
The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi due to non-compliance with a conditional judicial order regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount. The appellant failed to comply with the order despite notice, and no bona fide was shown in compliance. The Tribunal stated that legislation cannot be re-casted or re-written due to harsh consequences. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional judicial order.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1110
Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalty for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
- Non-compliance with pre-deposit order despite dismissal of Writ Petition
- Obligation of appellants to file appeal along with penalty amount unless dispensation granted
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, Sultan Syed Ibrahim, failed to comply with the pre-deposit order despite the dismissal of a Writ Petition challenging the same. The Member of the Appellate Tribunal highlighted the statutory obligation of appellants to file an appeal along with the penalty amount, unless dispensation is granted. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's non-compliance with the order, even after the High Court's decision, demonstrated a lack of bonafide on his part.
The Tribunal referred to Section 52(2) of the FERA, 1973, which outlines the procedure for filing an appeal and the requirement of depositing the penalty amount within a specified period. The provision allows for the Appellate Board to entertain appeals beyond the initial period if sufficient cause is shown, and to dispense with the deposit in cases of undue hardship. However, in this case, the appellant did not deposit the penalty amount despite the dismissal of the Writ Petition, indicating a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility under the Act.
The Member of the Tribunal, in agreement with the arguments presented by the Respondent's counsel, concluded that the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's non-compliance with the statutory scheme regarding the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders and statutory requirements, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The record of the appeal was ordered to be consigned to the Record Room, marking the conclusion of the case.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1109
Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalty for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
- Application for dispensation from pre-deposit of penalty amount
- Non-compliance of pre-deposit order by the appellant
- Legal provisions under section 52(2) of FERA, 1973 regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi pertains to an appeal filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, Mohd. Afsar Ali, was penalized for receiving and making payments to the tune of Rs. 18 lakh without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appeal was also accompanied by an application for dispensation from pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The Tribunal, in its order, highlighted that the appellant failed to comply with the order for pre-deposit despite being given a period of 30 days to do so. The appellant did not appear in the case even after notices were served, indicating a lack of bona fide on his part. The appellant's representative reported the non-compliance and agreed to dismiss the appeal as per the statutory scheme.
The Tribunal referenced section 52(2) of the FERA, 1973, which outlines the requirements for filing an appeal and the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The provision mandates that an appellant must deposit the sum imposed by way of penalty within 45 days from the date of the order, unless dispensation is granted. The Tribunal noted that despite leniency shown by granting dispensation of 20% of the penalty amount, the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order. The appellant was directed to deposit only 80% of the penalty amount, but he did not do so, indicating a lack of good faith on his part. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed, and an order to that effect was passed, consigning the record of the appeal to the record room.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with legal provisions, especially regarding pre-deposit requirements for filing appeals under the FERA, 1973. The Tribunal emphasized the need for appellants to adhere to orders and demonstrate good faith in legal proceedings to avoid dismissal of appeals.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1108
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to realize outstanding export proceeds.
2. Legal obligations under Section 18(2) and 18(3) r/w Section 68(1) of FER Act 1973.
3. Adequacy of efforts made by the appellants to recover export proceeds.
4. Vicarious liability of individual appellants.
5. Quantum of penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Failure to Realize Outstanding Export Proceeds:
The appellants were penalized for failing to realize outstanding export proceeds, contravening Section 18(2) and 18(3) r/w Section 68(1) of the FER Act 1973. The Tribunal noted that despite the appellants' claims of pursuing recovery through various means, including correspondence and a civil suit in the U.S. District Court, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure realization of the export proceeds.
2. Legal Obligations under Section 18(2) and 18(3) r/w Section 68(1) of FER Act 1973:
The Tribunal emphasized the legal obligations under Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, which mandate exporters to make reasonable efforts for repatriation of export proceeds. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "reasonable" as per the Advanced Law Lexicon, highlighting that what is reasonable varies depending on the circumstances and must be determined based on the specific facts of each case.
3. Adequacy of Efforts Made by the Appellants to Recover Export Proceeds:
The Tribunal found that the appellants' efforts were insufficient. For instance, goods were exported to various buyers between December 1996 and September 1997, but the appellants did not take timely or adequate actions to recover the proceeds. The Tribunal noted that mere filing of a suit long after the prescribed period and lack of follow-up actions were not enough to displace the adverse presumption under Section 18(3) of the Act.
4. Vicarious Liability of Individual Appellants:
The Tribunal addressed the contention that individual appellants should not be penalized without evidence of their responsibility for the company's conduct. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's rulings in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla and Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State, emphasizing that vicarious liability requires showing that the individuals were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The Tribunal found that the SCNs issued to the individual appellants sufficiently established their responsibility, and the appellants failed to demonstrate due diligence or lack of knowledge of the contravention.
5. Quantum of Penalty Imposed:
The Tribunal reviewed the penalty amounts imposed on the appellants and concluded that the penalties were neither harsh nor excessive considering the amount involved in the contravention. The Tribunal decided that no intervention was required regarding the penalty amounts.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. The Tribunal ordered that the amounts already deposited be appropriated towards the penalty, and the appellants were directed to deposit the balance penalty amount within 7 days from the receipt of the order. Failure to do so would entitle the respondent to recover the amount in accordance with the law.
............
|
9911796707
