9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 9(1)(c) of FERA, 1973. The full amount of penalty has been deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order of this Tribunal where presently the appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. Three show-cause notices each were issued against the three sister concerns, viz., M/s. City Knitting Co., Tirupur, M/s. Happy Bee and M/s. Nitco Hosiery Mills, Tirupur and the appellant who is Managing Partner of these concerns. The details of the three SCNs issued against the three firms and the appellant are given below : M/s. Happy Bee (i) Show Cause Memorandum No. T-4/105-M/88(SCN-I) for contravention of provisions of section 18(2) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 14,67,374 in having failed to realize the export proceeds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Cause Memorandum No. T-4/105-M/88 (SCN-VIII) for contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,80,050 being the cost of the machinery imported and consequent debt owed to the non-resident. (iii) Show Cause Memorandum No. T-4/105-M/88 (SCN-IX) for contravention of provisions of section 8(1) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 26,62,964.20 in having borrowed equivalent of said amounts as advance payments without the prior permission of the RBI. 3. This matter was earlier heard by Special Director and decided vide his order dated 6-2-1990 imposing penalties against the three firms and the appellant for contravention of provisions of section 18(2), section 9(1)(c) and section 8(1) where in appeals, the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation committed by the partnership firm under section 68(1) of the FERA. He relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement [2005] 60 SCL 217 . 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the record carefully. The appellant has not challenged the impugned order on merits instead he has preferred to take the arguments as regards the compendium nature of the firm and its partners alleging that either the firm or the partner should be penalized for the violation of the FERA. The appellant has filed this appeal where the firms have not preferred to file appeals before this Tribunal where I find no force in the averment of the appellant in this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
