9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a also submitted that the Bank itself had failed to comply with the procedure. Thus, there was hardly any doubt left regarding genuineness of the transactions which fact is not even disputed by the respondents. In these circumstances, the omission of the petitioners is merely a procedural irregularity. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and is quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a genuine recompense for the lapse committed by the petitioners in not furnishing original receipt for Bill of Entry, they would deposit a sum of ₹ 5000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund for Tsunami Victims. Let this be done in two weeks. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. - M S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol Manual:- (iv) In case an importer does not furnish the Exchange Control copy of the Bill of Entry within three months from the date of remittance (or within prescribed period as provided in paragraph 7A.10), the authorised dealer should issue a reminder to the importer asking him to produce it forthwith. If there is still no response, a reminder by registered post with acknowledgment due should be issued not later than one month from the date of the first reminder. (v) Authorised dealers should forward to reserve bank a statement as at the end of each calendar quarter in form BEF furnsihing details of import transactions in respect of which the importers have defaulted in submission of Exchange Control copies of Bills of Entry within a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not traceable. However, petitioners had duly furnished the copies of Bills of Lading, Invoices. The photocopy of Exchange Control copy of the Bill of Entry duly carried endorsement by the Customs Authorities of the clearance of the goods. Mr. Sharma also submitted that the Bank itself had failed to comply with the procedure. 7. In this view of the matter, there was hardly any doubt left regarding genuineness of the transactions which fact is not even disputed by the respondents. In these circumstances, the omission of the petitioners is merely a procedural irregularity. Reference is invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. The State of Orissa wherein the court while dealing on the question of impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
