9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2008 - Dr. Arijit Pasayat and G.S. Singhvi, JJ. Shri Indra Makwana, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri M. Chandrasekharan, ASG, Manish pushkarna, Vikas Sharma, Sanjeev Bhardwaj and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (in short the `Tribunal'). In the appeal before the Tribunal challenge was made by three appellants i.e. the present appellant and two of its partners to the adjudication order dated 15.6.1999 passed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal consignee, i.e., M/s Rose Carpets. But within a short period but before delivery (either of goods or Bill of Lading); the appellants came to know the weak financial position of consignee; so they requested through their banker to intimate the foreign bank not to deliver documents of title of goods to M/s Rose carpets but to change such document delivery to new buyer M/s Roman -Inc., 100, Park Plaza Drives. The authorized dealer/banker instead of sending the requested communication dated 16/17th April, 1992, to the correct office of the foreign bank, sent it to a wrong place and that is why the title documents were wrongly handed over despite clear instructions to the contrary whereby the consignment was delivered to original consignee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rose Carpets, whose financial position is too bad, can be of little use except to add to the total loss of the appellants who had already suffered badly. 4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellants exported the goods in the year 1991-92 and what to say of repatriation of export proceeds within six months the export proceeds have not been repatriated even long after. No extension from RBI was obtained either, so the impugned order is perfectly correct and requires to be maintained. 5 . So far as the consignment dated 2.4.1992 is concerned, the Tribunal accepted the stand of the appellants before it and exonerated them. It was noted, however, by the Tribunal that the appellants did not place a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot go into the question relating to the alternative remedy. Appellants had placed no material whatsoever as to what steps were taken for repatriation of the amount involved. According to Section 18(2) without general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India, the exporter is required to repatriate the sale proceeds within the prescribed period of six months. Section 18(3) creates a rebutable legal presumption against the exporter whenever the prescribed period expires without repatriation of the export proceeds to the effect that exporter had not taken requisite steps to obtain repatriation of the payment. 8. Above being the position, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
