9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repatriation of export proceeds of GRI No. AJ050405 to the tune of US $81,974 equivalent to Indian Rs. 34.96 lakhs. Along with appellant firm its partners, namely, Pawan Modgil, Kanshiram Modgil, Muskan Modgil are also penalized with an amount of Rs. 20,000 each but they have not filed any appeal. As this is an appeal solely by appellant a partnership firm so anything discussed hereunder shall relate to this appeal alone. This Tribunal, allows dispensation of pre-deposit on the grounds of prima facie good case and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. Learned counsel Shri Arun Kumar Gupta for the appellant argued that more than reasonable steps have been taken for repatriation of the export proceeds inasmuch as that foreign buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Enforcement 2000 (74) ECC 292 (ATFFE). (3) Smt. Manta Verma v. Deputy Director, Enforcement 2002 (80) ECC 37 (ATFFE). 4. In reply Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA argued on behalf of respondent that no extension from RBI is available on record after 31-12-2001 and more particularly when adjudication order was passed on 7-8-2003. Also the appellant has not brought out any contrary evidence before this Tribunal of making efforts for repatriation of export proceeds. Moreover, the efforts made when not projected in a systematic manner, the adjudicating authority is right in passing the impugned order hence, the adjudication order is liable to be sustained. Though para 2 of the impugned order at internal page 3 in the findings and order has not said that e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s factor at all but has concluded on extraneous grounds stating that because these efforts were not put up before the adjudicating authority in a systematic manner so appellants are held guilty of contravention. According to the adjudication order the presentation of the efforts is not systematic and that is why the appellants have been faulted upon. This is not the correct way to decide the matter. The presentation of pleadings differs from man to man. Any unsystematic presentation is not a ground to penalize the exporter. Therefore, the adjudication order is liable to be set aside and quashed especially when export price stands repatriated per the letter dated 8-9-2004 of State Bank of India though after a period of 6 months which fact ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
