9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilisation of foreign exchange remitted and for contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). 2. According to the appellant, it is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act. Previously it was incorporated as Ceat Financial Services Ltd. with its Corporate Office situated at Nariman Point. One Elbee Services Limited ("Elbee" for brief) requested the appellant to provide hire-purchase finance for importing spare parts required by its subsidiary Elbee Airlines from Hunting Aviation Limited situated in United Kingdom. To facilitate the same, the appellant provided for payment in foreign exchange by way of letter of credit bearing No. 974045 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same day the appellant also requested the C & F Agent as also UTI Bank to provide details particularly the bill of entry in respect of imports. However, on 28-10-2004, the appellant received an Order-in-original dated 26-10-2004 showing that the respondent No. 2 had imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellant confirming the charges in the show-cause notice issued in 2002. 3. According to the appellant, after the said order was passed, the appellant received several documents from Lufthansa Cargo and Air India, which go to show that the goods covered by the invoice were, in fact, delivered by Lufthansa Cargo by Flight LH8422 on 3-6-1997 and these goods were warehoused at the Heavy Warehouse of Air India under IGM No. 3080 certifyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant received the final opportunity notice on 8-10-2004 and thereafter in spite of the request of the appellant, no opportunity was given to produce necessary documents and evidence in support of its contention and the respondent No. 2 had passed the order imposing penalty hastily. 6. On perusal of record, it appears that the respondent No. 2 had issued the first show-cause notice on 16-5-2002 alleging that there was violation of the provisions of section 8 of FERA by the appellant. The FERA was repealed and FEMA came into force with effect from 1-6-2000. Section 49(3) of FEMA provided that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under section 51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of FERA. A request was made for adjournment. The record also reveals that on 15-10-2004 itself the appellant addressed letters to the different persons including the Branch Manager, UTI Bank Ltd., M/s. Mayekar & Sons, etc. to supply different documents in respect of the said import. However, the impugned Order-in-original was passed on 26-10-2004 even before the appellant could collect the relevant documents. It appears that later on the appellant received several documents which may prove the contentions of the appellant about the imports and which may establish that there was no contravention of the provisions of FERA. However, as due opportunity was not given to the appellant, these documents could not be produced by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
