9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a penalty of Rs. 68,00,000 on the firm, M/s. Shyam Traders (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 471 of 2008) [ the firm ] and Rs. 17,00,000 on each of the individual Appellants for failure to furnish evidentiary proof of imports regarding foreign exchange in respect of nine remittances in contravention of Sections 8 (3) and 8 (4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). 2. It must be mentioned at the outset that all the Appellants before the AT had deposited 25% of the penalty amounts as a condition for examining the appeals. After the impugned order was passed at the stage of admission of the present appeals and pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 26th May 2008, the Appellants furnished Bank Guarantees ( BGs ) for 25% of the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re too old. The letter further stated that the office of the firm was searched by the Customs authorities on 11th February 1995 and 27 files relating to the import documents prior to 1994 had been seized. Accordingly, a request had been made to the Customs authority to return the seized files. On 26th December 2003, the firm wrote to the BoB submitting one of the BoEs. 6. In the AO dated 30th December 2003, the SD held that as regards BoEs mentioned at Sl. Nos. 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 of the SCN, the Appellants had failed to submit any evidence to show that they had imported the goods for which the foreign exchange was remitted. Accordingly, the Appellants were held guilty of contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with para 7(A), 20(i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the Appellants has satisfied this Court that the aforementioned documents were part of the documents filed along with the appeals before the AT. However, for some reason, the above documents were overlooked by the AT. Significantly, learned counsel appearing for the ED before the AT did not challenge the aforementioned documents. 12. Ms. Behura submitted that the aforementioned documents were only copies of the originals and were furnished subsequent to the passing of the AO. They could not be stated to be authentic. 13. The Court notes that the documents were in respect of imports that took place pursuant to the remittances made in the years 1994 to 1999. The Customs authorities had in 1995 seized some of the files in respect of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
