9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but a penalty of Rs. 30,000 is imposed against appellant company on the reasons of not taking reasonable steps for repatriation of outstanding proceeds of 3 GRIs amounting to US dollar 28036. It is also contended that dropping of proceedings with regard to other outstanding export price is bad when based on the solitary evidence in the form of two letters from some private agency (read in contradiction to public authority) and solicitors with regard to non-traceability or insolvency of foreign buyers. By these revision petitions, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is invoked under the provisions of section 52(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 whereby this Tribunal is empowered to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter proof should have been called for. Lastly, it is contended that write off applied to RBI is not produced before the adjudicating authority, hence, the absolving of guilt of the respondents is totally wrong and without proper appreciation of the contentions of Enforcement Directorate. 4. This is a well settled legal position that this Tribunal under revisional powers is exercising a very limited jurisdiction. Further, this jurisdiction is required to be sparingly used where grave injustice has occurred. The petitioner nowhere states that a serious illegality has been occurred or grave injustice has been caused. Rather, the contentions are with regard to evaluation of evidence or the standard of value attached to particular evidence. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper evaluation. The adjudicating authority has accepted these two letters as proof of the contention of taking reasonable steps by the respondents. The question here is not of proof beyond reasonable doubt but such question relates only to asking reasonable steps for repatriation of the export proceeds. The adjudicating authority had accepted the said letters as proper proof against which there is no contrary evidence from the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, the contention of the Enforcement Directorate does not contain merit. 6. According to Ld. Counsel for the respondents the findings and conclusions of the adjudicating authority when based on appreciation of facts can neither be taken as arbitrary nor perverse. It is argued that ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
