9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10,00,000 each against appellant in Appeal Nos. 656/2004 and 657/2004 as partner of the appellant-firm and Rs. 5,00,000 against appellant in Appeal No. 671/2004 as partner of the appellant-firm for contravention of Section 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) and Section 68 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on the reasons that the appellants failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds of US dollars 1850931.13 of the goods exported through 23 GRIs. 3. This Tribunal while disposing off application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty allowed full dispensation of order dated 16.1.2008 to appellant in Appeal Nos. 656/2004 and 657/2004. Similarly, by order dated 6.9.2004 full dispensation is allowed to appellant in App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants were not allowed inspection of the relied on documents but the impugned order clearly says that Show Cause Notice was duly replied by the appellants. It has not been clearly brought out that who refused the inspection and when. The why of this question is not known, especially when Show Cause Notice in the last paragraph clearly permits inspection of the relied on documents. Once permitted, the inspection has got to be taken by the appellants and nobody else. If they continue to fail to inspect the relied on documents, it is their fault. Therefore, the principles of natural justice, as argued on the reliance of the judgments in (1) Basant Paper Mill Ltd. v. Union of India 1987 (10) ECR 329 (Allahabad), (2) Engser Ltd. v. Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (2). 10. Sub Section (3) of Section 18 provides that if exporter does not receive payment of goods exported within the prescribed period, it shall be presumed that the exporter has not taken reasonable steps to receive the payment for the exports. The Rule 8 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974 provides that the amount representing the full export value of goods exported shall be realized and be paid to the authorized dealer, on the due date for payment or within six months from the date of shipment of goods whichever is earlier. However, the presumption under Section 18 (3) is rebuttable and we are required to look at the facts with deep consideration if the steps taken can possibly displace the statutory presumption. 11. At this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant partnership firm. The value 6f exports is quite large where appropriate steps mean something more than a mere visit to the foreign buyer. 13. The pleadings described in the above paragraph are not required to be addressed to by this Tribunal, especially when this Tribunal has consistently held the view in accordance with the judgment of Taraknath Sen v. Union of India AIR 1975 Cal. 337 that partners cannot be imposed penalty simultaneously with the partnership firm. The retirement of the three appellants may be at any point of time but that hardly needs any discussion because this Tribunal is not holding the three individual appellant guilty for imposition of penalty. 14. Looking toward above situation, we do not see any merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
