9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(3) of the FERA. The main reason for the Additional Director of Enforcement levying penalty against the firm and its partners is that the firm with name M/s. Rilvan Leathers has not taken appropriate steps to collect the amount outstanding in the LC opened by M/s. Conceria Bomer and as such amount payable under LC was not remitted to India and thus section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA have been contravened. 2. It is not disputed that LC were opened by M/s. Conceria Bomer for transactions covered by invoice Nos. 886, 892 and (sic) for exports to Italy in 1978. It is not in dispute that goods were shipped under the abovesaid invoices to the Italian buyer. It so happened that Italian buyer, no doubt, honoured LC by remitting the money to the Itali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egotiable Instruments Act : To be a holder in due course following conditions are necessary : 1. Firstly, he must be a holder for consideration; 2. Secondly, the instrument must have been transferred to him before it becomes overdue; 3. Thirdly, he must be a transferee in good faith; and 4. That he should not have any reason to believe that there was any defect in the title of the transferor. Bulaqi Mal v. Abdul Rahim AIR 1923 Lah. 638, Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Purna Chandra Panda AIR 1957 Ori. 153. 3. The Bankers, in course of cross-examination exhibited several documents, annexed as Annexure 8 to this appeal. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that perusal of the said documents would show that it was the duty of the Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have taken steps for realization of monies. The learned Additional Director has held that as an exporter, responsibility lay on the firm to take legal action against the buyer in India for payment for export of goods. The Additional Director has opined that they were not concerned with the suit filed against the Union Bank of India. 5. I have examined the copies of the relevant documents annexed with Memorandum of Appeal. 6. In my opinion the learned Adjudicator is not correct in his interpretation of law that despite the Union Bank being Holders in due course there was liability on the part of Union Bank of India to institute legal proceedings. We do not have any clear picture of the exact nature of controversy between the exporter a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
