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

2008 (1) TMI 1006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... avention of the provisions of sections 48 and 73(3) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with RBI Circular No. AD (M.A. Series) Circular No. 30, dated 28-9-1993 read with section 64(2) and read with section 49(3) and 49(4) of the FEMA Act, 1999. In this case the appellant has complied the pre-deposit order dated 29-4-2004 of this Tribunal by depositing Rs. 80,000. Despite sufficient opportunity given to the parties they have not filed their written submissions. We cannot wait any more for the written submissions. Presently, this appeal is taken up for disposal on merits. 3. Memorandum No. T-4/189/DD/SLH/A/2002-SCN-VIII, dated 31-5-2002 was issued against the appellant for contravention of the provisions of sections 48 and 73(3) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J.M. Baxi Co., M/s. All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Seabridge Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd., including appellant, M/s. Sentrans Maritime (Western) Pvt. Ltd. who had handled the shipments meant for export to Russia during the relevant period. They were tried by the Adjudicating Officer where the appellant was held guilty where this appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned order. 5. We have heard elaborate arguments from Shri G. Umapathy, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, for the respondent. It is not disputed that M/s. Vishva Exim had effected subject shipments of goods/commodities of Indian origin declaring in the relevant export documents such as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bank. 6. It emerged from investigations that the shipping bills, bills of lading and other export documents relating to aforesaid export transaction that the exporter and shipping agents had declared the final destination of the goods as Moscow Russian Port but the exporter or the shipping agent had not submitted any documentary evidence that the goods exported as aforesaid actually reached Russia (Moscow). The Shipping agents admitted that they received cargo on nomination from their respective principals, but sought time to file the documents stating that the records were old, they would check it and submit the same within due course but they did not submit the same despite adequate opportunity given to them. 7. It is argued by the Ld. Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... opped working with Wilh, Wilhelmsen Agency. 8. As against it, it is argued by Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, that it was admitted by the exporter, M/s. Vishva Exim that they have not been able to contact the consignees opening firms at their given addresses in Russia. Inquiries made through source abroad also corroborated their version. Moreover, the subject exports did not find any reference in the Russian Customs Data base. The appellant company despite opportunities and sufficient time given to them did not furnish any documentary evidence such as Certificate from the Port Authority in respect of discharge of goods, the place where the goods finally were off-loaded from the Vessel which carried the goods from port of loading to port of discharge. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inland and to Moscow. The appellant had stopped their work with the said agency hence it could not furnish the details of the shipments having reached the port of discharge viz., Moscow. But the appellant cannot be given benefit of his own wrong where he was under an obligation to maintain his record about subject exports and to produce them in support of his case. The plea of delay is misleading which is liable to be rejected, particularly, when the documents were produced by other shipping agent as discussed above under similar circumstances. There is only bald statement not supported by any documentary evidence as to when the appellant stopped working with the said Wilh Wilhelmsen Agencies. 10. Thus, having considered the facts and evide .....

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