|
Advanced Search Options
FEMA - Case Laws
Showing 781 to 800 of 1378 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 1107
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
2. Validity of the confiscation of seized amount under Section 63 of FERA.
3. Admissibility and voluntariness of confessional statements.
4. Denial of cross-examination and principles of natural justice.
5. Burden of proof and standard of evidence required in economic offences.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973:
The appellant was charged with receiving Rs. 20.50 lakhs from Prithviraj Sheth on instructions from a person resident outside India without RBI's permission, contravening Section 9(1)(b) of FERA. The provision restricts receiving payments in India on behalf of persons resident outside India unless through an authorized dealer. The appellant admitted in his confessional statement to receiving the amount, which was corroborated by documents and statements from co-noticees. The Tribunal found no force in the appellant's contention of discrepancies in the amounts mentioned, confirming the penalty's legality.
2. Validity of the confiscation of seized amount under Section 63 of FERA:
The Enforcement Directorate seized Rs. 11.50 lakhs from the appellant's residence and Rs. 1.5 lakhs from his business premises. These amounts were confiscated under Section 63 of FERA. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting that the appellant failed to provide a legitimate source for the seized money. The substantial amount seized and corroborative statements from co-noticees supported the confiscation's validity.
3. Admissibility and voluntariness of confessional statements:
The appellant argued that his and Prithviraj Sheth's statements were forcibly obtained and retracted later. The Tribunal rejected this argument due to a lack of evidence supporting the claim of coercion. The retraction was deemed an afterthought without any basis. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that the burden of proving inducement or threat lies on the appellant, which he failed to discharge. The confessional statements, being detailed and corroborated by other evidence, were considered voluntary and admissible.
4. Denial of cross-examination and principles of natural justice:
The appellant claimed his right to natural justice was violated due to the denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Surjit Singh Chhabra v. UOI, stating that customs officials are not police officials, and cross-examination can be denied if no sufficient reason is provided. The Tribunal found that the nexus between the appellant and co-noticees was established, and the denial of cross-examination did not violate natural justice principles.
5. Burden of proof and standard of evidence required in economic offences:
The Tribunal noted that while the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, it does not require mathematical precision. Economic offences like those under FERA involve complex networks, and proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observation in Collector of Customs, Madras v. Bhoormull, emphasizing that legal proof is about establishing a high degree of probability. The evidence, including physical seizure, corroborative statements, and documents, was sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the charges under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA were proved against the appellant. The penalty and confiscation were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The pre-deposited amount was appropriated towards the penalty, and the appellant was directed to pay the balance within 15 days.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1106
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Non-compliance with the pre-deposit order under Section 52(2) of the FER Act, 1973.
3. Limitation period for filing appeals under Section 52(2) of the FER Act, 1973.
4. Proof of import for remittance of foreign exchange.
5. Authority of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) concerning write-offs.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
The appellants were penalized for failing to make the import of goods and file proof thereof after taking remittances of USD 174,000 and USD 20,000. According to Section 8(3), the importer must either import the goods or sell back the foreign currency to the authorized banker if the import cannot be made. Section 8(4) presumes non-compliance if the goods are not imported within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not provide clear proof of import, and the bill of entry alone was insufficient as it did not prove the payment of customs duty. The affidavit provided was also deemed self-serving and not acceptable as proof of import.
2. Non-compliance with the pre-deposit order under Section 52(2) of the FER Act, 1973:
The Tribunal emphasized that appeals are not maintainable without the pre-deposit of the penalty unless dispensation is granted on grounds of undue hardship. In Appeal Nos. 475/2004 and 543/2004, the appellants were directed to deposit 10% of the penalty, but the appellant company failed to comply. The Tribunal dismissed these appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, reiterating that the statutory requirement must be strictly followed.
3. Limitation period for filing appeals under Section 52(2) of the FER Act, 1973:
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates of receipt of the adjudication order by the appellant company, rejecting the later date as untrue. Appeals must be filed within 45 days, extendable by another 45 days for sufficient cause, but not beyond 90 days. Appeal Nos. 475/2004 and 543/2004 were filed beyond this period and were dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in State of Goa v. Western Builders, which supports strict adherence to statutory limitation periods.
4. Proof of import for remittance of foreign exchange:
The Tribunal held that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to demonstrate the actual import of goods. The bill of entry and other documents provided did not conclusively prove the import. The RBI's letter allowing waiver of filing proof did not exempt the appellants from the legal duty under Sections 8(3) and 8(4). The Tribunal underscored that proof of import and the act of importing goods are closely connected, and the appellants failed to meet this burden.
5. Authority of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) concerning write-offs:
The Tribunal clarified that the RBI's authority under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) permits granting prior permission for foreign exchange transactions but does not extend to writing off amounts taken for import under Sections 8(3) and 8(4). The RBI's write-off letter did not supersede the Enforcement Directorate's order, as the legal duty to use the foreign exchange for the specified purpose remains absolute.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals. Appeal Nos. 475/2004 and 543/2004 were dismissed for being time-barred and non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Appeal Nos. 473/2003 and 488/2003 were dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order and failure to provide proof of import. The appellants were directed to deposit their respective penalties within a week, failing which the respondent may recover the penalties in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1105
Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for non-production of evidence for import of goods.
- Compliance with pre-deposit order for appeal.
- Interpretation of Section 52(2) of the FERA, 1973 regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount for filing an appeal.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi pertains to an appeal filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty was imposed on the appellant company for not producing evidence for import of goods against remittance of foreign exchange. The appellant had moved the appeal along with an application for dispensation from pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The Tribunal had earlier ordered the appellant to deposit 20% of the penalty amount within 60 days, failing which the appeal could be dismissed. Despite multiple adjournments and reminders, the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order.
The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of Section 52(2) of the FERA, 1973, which require appellants to deposit the penalty amount for filing an appeal, unless dispensation is granted under certain conditions. The section allows for the Appellate Board to entertain an appeal even after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown, or if the deposit would cause undue hardship. In this case, the appellant did not adhere to the pre-deposit order, despite being given opportunities and opting to make the deposit himself. The Tribunal noted the lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant and concluded that equity did not favor the appellant. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the record was directed to be consigned to the Record Room.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders for appeals under the FERA, 1973. It emphasizes the statutory obligation of appellants to deposit the penalty amount unless dispensation is granted, and highlights the consequences of non-compliance, which may lead to dismissal of the appeal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1104
Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FER Act
- Delay in filing appeal and applicability of Section 52(2) of FER Act
- Interpretation of limitation period for filing appeal
- Dismissal of appeal due to delay exceeding statutory limit
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravening Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the FER Act 1973 by receiving and making payments in violation of the Act. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant failed to appear or be represented during the proceedings, leading to a discussion on the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent referred to the report of service of the adjudication order, highlighting a delay of more than five years in filing the appeal, which could lead to its dismissal.
The discussion in the judgment revolves around the provisions of Section 52(2) of the FER Act 1973, which governs the timeline for filing an appeal against an adjudication order. The section mandates that an aggrieved person must file an appeal within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. However, the first proviso to Section 52(2) allows the appellate forum to condone the delay if the appeal is filed within 90 days from the date of receipt, provided there is a sufficient cause for the delay. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limitations set forth in the Act.
The judgment draws a parallel with a Supreme Court case, State of Goa v. Western Builders, to illustrate the significance of adhering to prescribed limitation periods in legal proceedings. The Court's observation in the mentioned case regarding the exclusion of the operation of the Limitation Act in specific statutes is highlighted to emphasize the statutory framework within which the Tribunal operates. The judgment underscores the Tribunal's role as a creature of statute, bound by the legislative provisions, and unable to act beyond the statutory framework.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal due to the delay in filing exceeding the statutory limit of 90 days. The decision is grounded in the legislative mandate and the clear language of the statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of complying with prescribed timelines in legal proceedings. The appeal is consequently dismissed, and the matter is directed to be consigned to record, reaffirming the significance of procedural compliance in legal matters.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1103
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in New Delhi dismissed two appeals for non-compliance with a judicial order to deposit penalty amounts of Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 95,000. The appeals were against adjudication orders for contravention of FER Act, 1973. The Tribunal found it mandatory for the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the penalty amount while filing an appeal. The appellants failed to comply with the conditional judicial order, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1102
Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order under FER Act, 1973; Delay in filing appeal; Applicability of FEMA 1999; Provisions of section 52(2) of FER Act, 1973; Repeal of FER Act, 1973 by FEMA 1999; Continuation of proceedings under FER Act, 1973; Interpretation of section 49(4) of FEMA 1999; Effect of repeal on legal proceedings; Limitation period for filing appeal.
Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an adjudication order under the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act, 1973, challenging a penalty imposed for failure to submit proof of foreign exchange utilization. The appellant claimed delay due to non-receipt of show cause notice. The appeal was filed under FEMA 1999, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 45-day limit. However, the respondent argued the appeal was time-barred under section 52(2) of FER Act, which allows appeals within 90 days. The tribunal noted the outer limit for filing appeals under FER Act is 90 days, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines.
The tribunal addressed the repeal of FER Act, 1973 by FEMA 1999, emphasizing the continuation of proceedings under the former Act. It highlighted that all offenses under the repealed Act are governed by the old Act, as per section 49(4) of FEMA 1999. The tribunal cited legal principles and precedents to support the application of the old Act for pending appeals. It clarified that the appeal must be decided under the law in force when the proceedings began, unless the new statute explicitly alters rights.
Regarding the limitation period, the tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. It cited a Supreme Court decision to emphasize the exclusion of the Limitation Act in specific Acts like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for condonation of delay beyond the 90-day limit, stating that statutory provisions must be strictly followed. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to pay the balance penalty amount within a week, failing which enforcement action would be taken.
In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the statutory timelines for filing appeals, emphasized the continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act, and rejected the appellant's request for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed limit. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and timelines in legal proceedings.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1101
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty imposed for contravention of foreign exchange regulations.
2. Allegation of violation of natural justice and reliance on retracted admissional statement.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Appeal against penalty imposed for contravention of foreign exchange regulations
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for receiving/making payments from a person resident outside India in contravention of specific sections. The appellant had made a pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty amount as directed by the tribunal. The investigation stemmed from postal acknowledgments linked to a person of Indian origin but resident outside India. The appellant admitted to receiving and disbursing funds under the instructions of the said person. However, during adjudication, the appellant contended that his admission was obtained under force and torture, challenging the reliance on his statement. The appellant also argued that the lack of cross-examination of the individuals mentioned in his statement violated the principles of natural justice.
Issue 2: Allegation of violation of natural justice and reliance on retracted admissional statement
The respondent argued that the appellant's admissional statement was corroborated by documentary evidence and should be considered valid. The respondent contended that the subsequent retraction of the statement during adjudication proceedings was an afterthought and should not be accepted. The tribunal rejected the argument that the impugned order violated the principle of natural justice, citing the necessity for reasons to demand cross-examination. Referring to legal precedents, the tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not show why cross-examination of the mentioned individuals was essential when his own statement was available. The tribunal also discussed the evidentiary value of the retracted admissional statement, highlighting legal principles that allow reliance on such statements if corroborated by independent evidence. Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the appeal, confirming the impugned order and dismissing the appeal.
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the penalty within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized the voluntary and admissible nature of the appellant's admissional statement and rejected the arguments of violation of natural justice.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1100
Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FER Act 1973
- Application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty
- Application for recalling pre-deposit order
- Interpretation of Section 52(2) of FER Act 1973
- Failure to make pre-deposit leading to dismissal of appeal
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty was imposed for a transaction involving payment to an individual in contravention of the Act. The appellant filed an application for dispensation of pre-deposit of the penalty, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The appellant was given 30 days to make the pre-deposit, failing which the appeal would be dismissed solely on this ground.
Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to recall the pre-deposit order, requesting to pay the penalty in installments. However, it was noted that the appellant had not made any pre-deposit, indicating a lack of bona fide intention in seeking a review and suggesting a mere attempt to delay proceedings. The Tribunal highlighted that as per Section 52(2) of the FER Act 1973, an appeal must be filed along with the pre-deposit of the penalty unless dispensation is allowed due to undue hardship, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with judicial orders and the consequences of failing to do so. Referring to the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Act, the Tribunal noted that it had no authority to interpret the statute differently to avoid harsh consequences. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal reiterated the need to adhere to the plain language of the law. Despite granting dispensation of up to 90% of the penalty, the appellant failed to make any pre-deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to make any pre-deposit, either in full or in part, as required by the order dated 15.2.08. The lack of compliance with the Tribunal's directive resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and orders in such matters.
-
2008 (7) TMI 850
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge against the Adjudication Order u/s 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds.
Details of the Judgment:
Challenge against Adjudication Order:
The appellants challenged the Adjudication Order imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each for failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. Despite multiple adjournments sought by the appellants' counsel, the appellants failed to appear or be represented, leading to the final disposal of the appeals on merit based on available records within the stipulated time frame u/s 19(5) of FEMA, 1999.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants contended that they are partners of the noticee firm, which exported goods to the U.S.A. The appellants claimed to have taken all reasonable steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds, including personal visits and communication with the foreign buyer. They highlighted the bankruptcy of the foreign buyer and subsequent legal proceedings as reasons for non-repatriation of the full export value.
Respondent's Arguments:
The respondent contended that the appellants failed to provide evidence of their efforts to recover the outstanding export proceeds within the prescribed period. They argued that the appellants did not follow RBI's advice to approach for the status of outstanding amounts, and the correspondences provided were not sufficient to absolve the appellants from the contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973.
Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal referred to Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, emphasizing the requirement for RBI permission to secure payment for exported goods and the presumption of non-reasonable steps taken by the exporter in case of non-recovery of payment. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to disprove the adverse presumption against them under Section 18(3) due to lack of evidence showing timely efforts to recover the export proceeds.
Decision on Penalty:
The Tribunal found the penalty imposed on the appellants to be appropriate considering the contravention and the amount involved. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lacking merit and directed the pre-deposited amount to be appropriated towards the penalty, with the appellants given a deadline to deposit the balance penalty amount, failing which the Enforcement Directorate would recover it in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 835
Whether the amount recovered which was a case property could be handed over by the S.H.O. to the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, FEMA without the orders of the Court?
Whether the Enforcement Directorate was justified in releasing the amount to the accused which was a case property of case of FIR No.311 dated 27.04.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar under Sections 411/414 IPC read with Section 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA Act, 1999?
Held that:- There was a violation of provisions of FEMA Act and under Enforcement Directorate had to act and penalty imposed by him was a consequence to the act of the petitioners who had received cash amount from abroad through channels which were not permissible, but it does not absolve petitioners as the amount so received was to be declared before the Income Tax Authorities. Non-declaration of the amount will amount to evasion of tax and Income Tax Authorities are within their right to proceed under Income Tax Act in accordance with the provisions of law.
Orders Annexures P-6 and P-7 are perfectly legal and no interference is called for, but by a flux of time, ground realities and circumstances may have changed. In case, trial of FIR No.311 dated 27.04.2001 has concluded, the petitioners may have been convicted or acquitted. This will change the rigor of the direction that amount of ₹ 7,81,000/- be deposited back. Furthermore, in case, Income Tax Authorities had assessed the amount and imposed the penalty, the requirement of depositing the amount of ₹ 7,81,000/- will also lose its sting, in case the penalty and the income tax assessed has been deposited. Therefore, even though have held that the impugned orders are perfect and legal taking various facts mentioned above, still there is scope for variance in the directions to deposit the amount. Accordingly, remand the matter back to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, to take into consideration the outcome of trial in case FIR No.311 dated 27.04.2001 and proceedings before Income Tax Authorities.
-
2008 (6) TMI 649
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of the adjudication officer after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Legality of the investigation conducted after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
3. Alleged contravention of sections 6(4), 6(5), 7, 8(1), 49, 73(3), and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
4. Presumption of correctness of documents under section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
5. Compliance with procedural rules during adjudication.
6. Liability of company officials for contraventions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Appointment of the Adjudication Officer:
The appellants argued that the adjudication officer was appointed after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), thus questioning the validity of the adjudication process. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal arose from an adjudication order passed under section 51 of FERA, which was repealed and replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). However, section 49 of FEMA allows for the continuation of proceedings under the repealed Act, preserving the rights and liabilities as if the Act had not been repealed. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal should be decided under the provisions of FERA, and the appointment of the adjudication officer was deemed valid under the saving provisions of FEMA. The Tribunal cited various legal precedents to support this interpretation, including the judgment in Mohd. Mustafa Ahmed Alvi v. Union of India, which upheld the appointment of adjudicating officers under the provisions of FERA.
2. Legality of the Investigation:
The appellants contended that the investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate was invalid as it commenced after the repeal of FERA. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that section 49(4) of FEMA explicitly provides that offences committed under the repealed Act continue to be governed by its provisions. The Tribunal further noted that even if the investigation was deemed wrongful, the evidence gathered could still be used to establish guilt, referencing case law that supports the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal searches, such as Puran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Inv.).
3. Alleged Contravention of FERA Provisions:
The appellants were penalized for contravening various sections of FERA, including sections 6(4), 6(5), 7, 8(1), 49, 73(3), and 68. The Tribunal highlighted that as full-fledged money changers (FLM), the appellants were required to act with due care and caution, as stipulated in their RBI license. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants failed to demonstrate good faith in their transactions, as they sold foreign currency to non-existent firms and individuals, thereby violating the statutory obligations. The Tribunal also clarified that the presence of mens rea (intent) is not necessary for regulatory offences under FERA, as established in State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George.
4. Presumption of Correctness of Documents:
The appellants argued that the presumption of correctness of documents under section 72 of FERA was not applicable due to the absence of a joint trial with the person from whom the documents were recovered. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the presumption affects the credibility of evidence but does not render it inadmissible. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence to hold the appellants guilty of contravention, irrespective of the presumption under section 72.
5. Compliance with Procedural Rules:
The appellants claimed that the adjudication officer failed to conduct the inquiry as required under rule 3(3) of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1973. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting that the adjudication officer provided a full opportunity for the appellants to be heard and that the impugned order was passed following due process.
6. Liability of Company Officials:
The appellants, including the Managing Director, Director, Manager, and Branch Manager, argued that they should not be held liable as they did not physically handle the transactions. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that these officials were responsible for supervising the sale of foreign currency and ensuring compliance with statutory obligations. The Tribunal held them liable under section 68 of FERA for failing to prevent the contraventions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalties imposed on the appellants for contravening the provisions of FERA. The Tribunal found no error in the adjudication process and emphasized the appellants' failure to act with due care and caution in their transactions. The appellants were directed to deposit the penalties within seven days, failing which recovery proceedings could be initiated.
-
2008 (6) TMI 648
Issues:
Appeals against penalty imposed for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Failure to repatriate export proceeds - Dispensation of pre-deposit - Partnership firm liability - Reasonableness of efforts to receive payment for exports.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange involved appeals against a penalty imposed for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, due to the failure to repatriate export proceeds. The penalty was imposed on the appellant-firm and individual appellants as partners for contravening Section 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) and Section 68 of the Act. The appellants failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds amounting to US dollars 1850931.13 from goods exported through 23 GRIs.
The Tribunal considered the application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty and allowed full dispensation for some appellants while requiring partial deposit for others. The appeals were taken up for final disposal on merits after the pre-deposit orders were complied with by the appellants. The parties were represented by their respective counsels, and written submissions were considered.
The appellants contended that a partnership firm was constituted with them as partners, but subsequent changes in partners occurred. It was argued that efforts were made to convince the foreign buyer for remittance of export proceeds. However, the Tribunal noted that the efforts made, such as a visit by a partner to the foreign buyer in 1996, were not sufficient to meet the standard of 'reasonable efforts' required for repatriation of export proceeds.
The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions under Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which establish the duty of exporters to take reasonable steps to receive payment for exports within the prescribed period. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) is rebuttable but requires a deep consideration of the facts to displace it. The concept of 'reasonable' efforts was discussed, highlighting that mere visits may not suffice for large export values.
In light of the facts and legal principles, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of individual partners but sustained the penalty against the appellant-firm. The judgment referenced previous decisions to support the distinction between partnership firm liability and individual partner liability. The quantum of penalty was deemed appropriate considering the contravention amount. The impugned order was modified, allowing the Enforcement Directorate to appropriate the pre-deposited amount towards penalty and requiring the remaining penalty to be deposited within a week.
In conclusion, the appeals of individual partners were allowed, while the appeal of the appellant-firm was dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment clarified the liability of partners and the firm, emphasizing the need for reasonable efforts in repatriating export proceeds to comply with the legal provisions.
-
2008 (6) TMI 647
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973 for receiving payment from NRE account.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
3. Burden of proof in economic offenses and presumption of facts under the Evidence Act.
4. Denial of inspection and cross-examination rights in adjudication proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an adjudication order imposing penalties on the appellant and a co-noticee for receiving payment from an NRE account in contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant contended that the payment was a gift from a non-resident, supported by a gift deed, and that he did not know the co-noticee. The respondent argued that the appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for receiving a substantial amount as a gift, leading to a clear contravention of the Act. The appellant's failure to prove the existence of love and affection raised doubts, and the burden of proof was on the appellant to explain the gift under section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
2. The appellant claimed a violation of natural justice as he was not allowed to inspect seized documents or cross-examine the co-noticee. However, the respondent contended that inspection was offered, and no request for cross-examination was made during the proceedings. The burden of proof in economic offenses was discussed, emphasizing that the prosecution is not required to prove facts within the accused's knowledge. The appellant's failure to explain the sudden gift raised suspicions, and the denial of cross-examination was deemed not prejudicial without a valid reason.
3. The judgment highlighted the principles of burden of proof in economic offenses, citing the Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull case. It emphasized that the burden is on the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge, and failure to do so may lead to adverse inferences. The judgment also referred to the importance of cross-examination in establishing facts, noting that the right must be justified and not used to prolong proceedings without valid reasons. The appellant's failure to request cross-examination during adjudication was considered an afterthought and not permitted to lengthen the proceedings.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjudication order, finding no fault in it. The penalty imposed was deemed reasonable and not excessive, warranting no interference. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, and the adjudication order was sustained and maintained without any identified errors.
-
2008 (6) TMI 646
Issues Involved:
1. Legality, propriety, and correctness of the adjudication order dated 13th October 2000.
2. Timeliness of filing the revision petitions.
3. Authorization of the person filing the revision petitions.
4. Misdescription of the respondent's name.
5. Legal obligations under Sections 18(2), 18(3), and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
6. Presumption and rebuttal under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
7. Fresh adjudication requirement.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality, Propriety, and Correctness of the Adjudication Order:
The revision petitions challenge the adjudication order dated 13th October 2000, which exonerated the respondents from charges under Sections 18(2), 18(3), and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudication officer did not consider whether the respondents took reasonable steps to repatriate the export proceeds of US dollars 3,53,77,745, which remains unrealized. The Tribunal found that the adjudication officer's directive to the RBI to consider price reduction was inappropriate as it limited the RBI's discretion.
2. Timeliness of Filing the Revision Petitions:
The petitions were filed 146 days after the adjudication order, which is less than five months. Although Section 52(4) does not prescribe a limitation period, the Tribunal noted that revision petitions should be filed within a reasonable period. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in E.S.I. Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar, the Tribunal stated that the reasonable period depends on the factual circumstances of each case. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not unreasonable and did not demonstrate waiver or acquiescence by the respondents.
3. Authorization of the Person Filing the Revision Petitions:
The petitions were signed by Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA, but lacked signatures on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate or Director of Enforcement. The Tribunal ruled that this technicality could not block the route of justice, especially since the impugned order was allegedly passed disregarding settled legal positions.
4. Misdescription of the Respondent's Name:
The respondent's name was incorrectly described as "M/s Saket India, Bangalore" instead of "M/s Saketh India Ltd, Bangalore." The Tribunal held that this was a mere misdescription and not a misidentification. Such minor errors should not result in the failure of prosecution, as the respondent was correctly identified.
5. Legal Obligations under Sections 18(2), 18(3), and 68:
Section 18(2) prohibits actions that would prevent payment for exported goods in the prescribed manner without RBI's permission. Section 18(3) presumes that if payment is not received within the prescribed period, the exporter has not taken reasonable steps to recover the payment unless proven otherwise. The adjudication officer failed to consider whether the respondents took reasonable steps to repatriate the export proceeds.
6. Presumption and Rebuttal under Section 18(3):
The Tribunal highlighted that the presumption under Section 18(3) is rebuttable. The adjudication officer did not evaluate whether the respondents' actions could displace this statutory presumption. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the steps taken by the respondents to recover the export proceeds.
7. Fresh Adjudication Requirement:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, starting from the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The respondents were directed to appear before the adjudication officer on 11th August 2008, with the expectation that the proceedings would conclude within six months.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found significant procedural and substantive issues in the adjudication order dated 13th October 2000. It emphasized the need for a thorough re-examination of whether the respondents took reasonable steps to repatriate the export proceeds and directed a fresh adjudication to ensure compliance with legal standards.
-
2008 (6) TMI 645
Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FER Act
- Retraction of admissional statement by the appellant
- Burden of proof in adjudication proceedings
- Contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(3) of FER Act
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange heard an appeal against an adjudication order imposing penalties for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FER Act). The penalties were imposed for contravention of Section 9(3) and Section 9(1)(b) of the FER Act. The appellant was alleged to have paid foreign currency to a non-resident person and received money from a non-resident person in India. The penalty amount was appropriated from the recovered currency, eliminating the need for pre-deposit of penalty. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits.
The appellant admitted to receiving Indian currency and making a statement regarding the source of the funds. However, the appellant later retracted the admissional statement, alleging threat and coercion. The Enforcement Directorate issued Show Cause Notices to the appellant, who replied before the adjudication proceedings were held, leading to the impugned order.
Despite the appellant's father claiming ownership of the recovered money, his non-examination did not impact the case significantly. The retraction of the admissional statement after 37 days and the lack of evidence supporting the alleged threat and coercion weakened the appellant's contentions. The Tribunal cited legal precedents emphasizing the voluntary nature of statements made before enforcement authorities.
The Tribunal highlighted the burden of proof in adjudication proceedings, citing legal principles regarding proof in criminal or quasi-criminal cases. The burden lies on the Department to prove contraventions, with the prosecution not required to establish its case with absolute certainty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the impugned order, confirming the penalties imposed for contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(3) of the FER Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was passed accordingly, consigning the appeal to records.
-
2008 (6) TMI 644
Issues:
Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalty for contravention of FERA and FEMA provisions regarding outstanding export proceeds. Failure to recover export proceeds, lack of reasonable efforts, and imposition of penalty challenged. Non-consideration of appellant's reply to Show Cause Notice, delay in issuing notice, and lack of detailed discussion on efforts made by appellant raised as grounds for appeal. Allegation of inordinate delay in passing orders and violation of principles of natural justice highlighted.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty on an appellant company for contravention of provisions under FERA and FEMA related to outstanding export proceeds. The company failed to recover export proceeds amounting to Rs. 44,41,098, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000. The appellant challenged the order, citing non-recovery reasons and efforts made, which were allegedly not adequately considered by the Adjudicating Officer. The appellant's reply to the Show Cause Notice was claimed to be disregarded, and the delay in issuing notices and passing orders was highlighted as a violation of natural justice principles.
The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Officer failed to consider the detailed film-wise explanations provided by the company regarding efforts made to recover outstanding dues. It was contended that the delay of over 2 years in passing the impugned order invalidated it, as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present their case effectively. The appellant's representative emphasized that the order was passed ex-parte without proper notice and that the service of notices was inadequate, undermining the principles of natural justice.
The judgment also referenced the legal principle that inordinate delays in passing orders after hearings can vitiate judgments, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar. The Court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication to uphold the parties' rights conferred by the Constitution. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's order was deemed liable to be quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, stressing the need for a detailed reply from the appellant and a fair hearing to ensure public interest and the appellant's rights were protected.
In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Officer for reconsideration. The Adjudicating Officer was directed to provide a full opportunity for both parties to present their case and resolve the matter promptly, preferably within six months from the first appearance before him. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair hearing in the adjudication process.
-
2008 (6) TMI 643
The Appellate Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed on the appellants for failure to repatriate export proceeds, citing improper service of Show Cause Notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the appellants required to appear before the Adjudication Officer on a specified date. The Adjudication Officer was instructed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the first hearing.
-
2008 (6) TMI 642
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi dismissed appeal No.D-147/03 and D-180/03 challenging adjudication orders imposing penalties under FER Act. The appeals were filed with insufficient court fees and were dismissed as the proper appellate forum is Special Director (Appeals) FEMA. The appellants sought to withdraw the appeals but did not clearly state so. The appeals were dismissed for lack of provision for transfer to another forum.
-
2008 (6) TMI 641
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Adjudication Order exonerating respondents from contraventions of Section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Validity of filing revision petitions after a delay.
3. Authorization of the Deputy Legal Adviser to file the revision petitions.
4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange to entertain the revision petitions.
5. Ignorance of law versus ignorance of fact as a defense.
6. Determination of penalties for contraventions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Adjudication Order:
The revisionist sought the examination of the legality, propriety, and correctness of the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/72-73/DD/SLH/99 dated 24.9.1999, which exonerated the respondents from allegations of contraventions under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Tribunal found that the impugned order erroneously exonerated the respondents based on ignorance of law, which is not a valid defense. The respondents were found guilty of making and receiving payments on behalf of non-residents without the permission of the RBI, thus contravening Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d).
2. Validity of Filing Revision Petitions After a Delay:
The revision petitions were filed after a delay of 1 year, 10 months, and 12 days. The Tribunal acknowledged that while there is no prescribed limitation period under Section 52(4), the revision petitions must be filed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal referred to judicial norms and previous judgments to determine what constitutes a reasonable period. Despite the delay, the Tribunal decided to examine the merits of the case to avoid perpetuation of injustice.
3. Authorization of the Deputy Legal Adviser:
The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Legal Adviser, Dr. Shamsuddin, who filed the revision petitions, was not authorized to do so. However, it was common practice for revision petitions to be filed under the signatures of either the Deputy Legal Adviser or the Assistant Legal Adviser. The Tribunal decided not to dismiss the petitions on this technicality, especially since it also had suo motto powers to examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of the adjudication order.
4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange:
The respondents argued that the Tribunal's revisional jurisdiction is narrower than its appellate jurisdiction and should be exercised within reasonable time limits. The Tribunal clarified that it has revisional jurisdiction under Section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and Section 19(6) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Tribunal emphasized that its revisional powers are meant to correct serious illegality and ensure that lower authorities remain within the boundaries of law.
5. Ignorance of Law vs. Ignorance of Fact:
The respondents claimed they were unaware that the individuals on whose behalf they made or received payments were non-residents. The Tribunal rejected this defense, stating that ignorance of law is no excuse. The Tribunal found that the respondents had admitted ignorance of law in their replies to the show cause notices but had not pleaded ignorance of fact. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' actions contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
6. Determination of Penalties:
The Tribunal determined that Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 contravened Section 9(1)(d) by making payments on behalf of non-residents, while Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contravened Section 9(1)(b) by receiving such payments. The Tribunal imposed penalties of Rs. 1,00,00,000 each on Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Rs. 66,00,000 on Respondent No. 4, and Rs. 34,00,000 on Respondent No. 5. The penalties were deemed appropriate given the gravity of the contraventions and the amounts involved.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange quashed the impugned adjudication order and imposed substantial penalties on the respondents for contraventions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and the necessity of imposing penalties to deter future violations.
-
2008 (6) TMI 640
Issues:
Appeal against adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of sections of FER Act, 1973 based on abetment by assisting in wrongful acquisition of foreign currency, receiving and distributing money, and making payments for property outside India.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of sections of the FER Act, 1973, based on allegations of abetment by assisting in various illegal activities. The appellant's late brother, who was involved in importing old hand cars, had sold these cars in the Indian market. However, it was revealed that the imported cars were not purchased in the name of the dealer but in the name of other individuals without the financial capacity for such imports. The late brother had admitted to violating provisions of the FER Act, but later retracted his statement. The appellant also made an admissional statement, but did not retract it. The Tribunal highlighted that the onus or burden of proof lies on the appellant under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal noted the presence of two admissional statements, one retracted by the late brother and the other by the appellant, which was not retracted.
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents regarding retracted statements and their admissibility. It cited the Supreme Court's stance that the voluntary nature of a statement is crucial and that retraction alone does not render a statement involuntary. The Tribunal also mentioned a case where reliance on a retracted confession was allowed if found voluntary and true. It was emphasized that admissional statements of co-noticees can be relied upon for establishing guilt. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had actively assisted his late brother in contravening the FER Act, and abetment was proven beyond reasonable doubt. No errors in the impugned order were identified, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with the impugned order sustained and the pre-deposited penalty amount to be appropriated towards the penalty.
............
|
9911796707
