9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exports proceeds to the tune of Rs. 14,14,917. The appellant has paid 50 per cent of the amount of penalty i.e., Rs. 50,000 in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal dated 24-2-2006. Presently, the appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. The main allegation against the appellant is that during the years 1980-81, M/s. Pee N. Cee Exports effected shipment of goods valued at Rs. 14,14,917 under 20 GRIs. The said partnership firm was consisted of two partners Smt. Jasleen Kaur, appellant and Smt. Surender Kaur, who failed to take reasonable steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds within the stipulated period in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 68(1) and (2) of FER Act, 1973. Accordingly, a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her partner Smt. Surender Kaur and the entire documents of the said firm were also taken by Smt. Surinder Kaur. The appellant had no knowledge about the business of the said firm thereafter. The attention of this Tribunal was drawn by the learned counsel towards clause (2) of dissolution deed which provided that after this dissolution deed the appellant was under no obligation as regard the realization of the outstanding export proceeds. After this dissolution deed the responsibility to realize the said outstanding export proceeds was on Smt. Surender Kaur who had gone to USA ten years back. It is argued by the learned counsel that Smt. Surender Kaur should be traced by the Enforcement Directorate who was one of the noticee in the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and gone through the material available on record and relevant law. From the perusal of the impugned order it is found established that appeal Nos. 36 and 37 of 1996 were in no manner connected with the transaction in question in the present appeal which related to separate transactions of exports which were made in 1981. Separate SCNs were issued in the aforesaid two appeals for non-realization of export proceeds for violation of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 and penalties were imposed vide adjudication order dated 18-12-1995. The appellant has not been able to produce any evidence on record to prove the case otherwise. 7. In the present case the appellant has not denied as partnership in the firm M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1)... Under section 18(3) a presumption is raised against the exporters who are not able to realize the export proceeds in prescribed time, which is rebuttable. 8. In the present case admittedly the appellant was a partner in the exporter firm at the time when exports were made and continued to be so till July, 1984 i.e., for about four years where the said firm is said to have been dissolved. There is nothing on record to prove that any efforts were made by the appellants to realize outstanding export proceeds within the six months or thereafter till she continued to be the partner of that firm to realize the said export proceeds. No extension of time was sought from RBI or nor any prayer was made by the appellants for waiver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
