Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 867

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 18(3) but it is only in reference to one consignment therefore questions the imposition of heavy penalty of Rs 50 lacs while on the main defaulter Smt Venita, it is only 45 lacs. HELD THAT:- We find contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA, 1973 because Shri V.K. Singh and Shri Dilip Nihalani colluded and were instrumental in making the exports and they received incentive from the custom authorities in respect of the shipment. The appellant had admitted for preparation of the documents though attended only one shipment. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances and while we find a case for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 64(2) of FERA, find penalty of Rs. 50 lacs to be disproportionate. The penal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 64(2) of FERA, 1973, the Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lacs on the appellant and on the other noticee Smt. Venita, proprietrix of M/s Sai International, Hyderabad, Rs. 45 lacs. The allegation in the memorandum served on the appellant is that during the year 1988, M/s Sai International affected export of three consignments of readymade garments to Dubai for a value of Rs. 2,51,80,620/- and failure to secure the export value of the entire sum. The export was made by the Sai International of Smt. Venita, thus, she alone was responsible for realisation of export proceeds but penalty have been imposed even on the appellant though he was not even connected with all the three export consignme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8 -do- 1,23,09,000 c) 224937 16.3.99 Self a/c of Indian Association of Dubai 5,47,770 The company failed to recover the amount of export dues and thus investigation in the matter was conducted where it was revealed that without the permission of RBI or an extension order for recovering of the export dues, the noticee firm failed to recover the amount and even did not seek further extension for its recovery. Smt P. Venita was found responsible apart from the appellant Shri V. K. Singh and Shri Dilip Nehalani. The allegation against them is for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 64(2) of FERA, 1973. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant apart from two others to call upon their reply and personal hearing. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rade: Provided that no proceedings in respect of any contravention of the provisions of this sub-section shall be instituted unless the prescribed period has expired and payment for the goods representing the full export value has not been made in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. (3) Where in relation of any goods to which a notification under clause (a) of sub-section (1) applies the prescribed period has expired and payment therefore has not been made as aforesaid, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved by the person who has sold or is entitled to sell the goods or to procure the sale thereof, that such person has not taken all reasonable steps to receive or recover the payment for the goods as aforesaid an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond exports but he did not attend the first export. It was however submitted that the allegation of receipt of Rs 14 lacs from M/s Sai International is to be verified though he admitted that cheques were received from Dilip Nihanlani but would be verified from cash register. Appellant Shri V.K. Singh did not appear with the cash register thereupon. He was detained under COFEPOSA. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Officer concluded the proceedings finding contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 64(2) of FERA, 1973 in reference to three consignments. In fact, the export dues were not recovered and at the same time, benefit of drawback was taken. The drawback amount was about Rs. 22 lacs and it was admitted that the appellant ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates