9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel. Penalty amounts reported deposited. This appeal has been preferred from the orders dated 19th August, 2003 of the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bangalore. In the proceedings under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and for brevity, in respect of violation of section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act by the appellant. 2. The adjudication proceedings were held against the appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply from RBI regarding their responsibility to convince the Department regarding evidence of import. On close of the enquiry, the Adjudication Officer found the noticees guilty of the charge and so awarded a consolidated penalty against the noticees; aggrieved with the findings and order, the company and co-noticees in the proceedings have preferred this appeal. 3. The only point for decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned authority and so the impugned findings is bad in law and unsustainable. As rightly pointed out by the DLA Shri Shamsuddin, it is clear from the certificate issued at the Port Trust as well as that proceedings filed by the Company against Port Trust that the goods were not received in India; Company had also admitted that the goods were not received at Chennai Port even though those wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for no intervention. The finding is not vitiated by illegality or impropriety. 6. As regards the penalty, the counsel of the appellant insists on the plea that there was no guilty mind of the company or its Directors in doing the default. Having heard either side, I feel that the non-import of the goods in India and also the long silence of the company regarding the deals caused of the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
