9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits. Shri Jeevaratnam submitted that he would deposit the requisite amount of fee forthwith. He further submitted that the copy of the adjudication order was received belatedly and hence he should not be penalised for this. He further submitted that in other appeal the copy of the adjudication order was received in time and, therefore, he filed that appeal in time paying the then prevailing rates of fee. Since the department has sent the copy of the adjudication order late in this case, he should not be penalised for this. He requested that a finding on this aspect may be given. Although the contention of Shri Jeevaratnam appears to be ex facie convincing, nonetheless the appeal is governed by the procedure as in force at the time of its filing. This Tribunal is not vested with any power to dispense with the same in any circumstances. Hence the deposit of fee in accordance with the rule is in order. 4. It would be expedient to recapitulate briefly the facts in the context in which these appeals have arisen for consideration. On 10-6-1997, Shri A. Balasubramanian, Manager of International Money Exchange Corporation (IMEC), Chennai and Shri M. Soosai, Cashier of IMEC while riding o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IMEC which is a licensed full-fledged money- changer and the same have been duly entered in their records. Shri Jeevaratnam referred to American Express s Receipt and Ex. 14 relating to sale of travellers cheques. These could not have been sold to anyone unauthorisedly. Both Shri A. Balasubramanian and M. Soosai were the employees and whose names have been duly forwarded to the RBI for sale and purchase of currencies in that capacity on behalf of IMEC. As such, there could not be any transfer in terms of section 8 with whose contravention the appellants were charged with. Shri Jeevaratnam narrated the circumstances in which the TCs were inadvertently signed. Nonetheless, he submitted that as per the prevailing practice, the presenter of these TCs would be required to sign again in the presence of the authorised dealer. Had it been their intention to illegally transfer these TCs, it would have been easier for them not to have these TCs countersigned by anyone for in any case, the buyer would be signing the same at the time of presenting these TCs for encashment to any authorised dealer. 6. Shri Jeevaratnam further submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant are vague. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , coins and travellers cheques on their behalf together with their specimen signatures, at the end of each year to the office of Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction they are functioning. Any changes in the list should also be brought to the notice of Reserve Bank. No person other than the authorised representative should be allowed to transact money-changing business on behalf of the money-changer . In view of this, it cannot be said that the appellants have not complied with the conditions contained in para 3 of memorandum referred to above. It is further clear that the appellant-firm handed over foreign exchange to its employees whose names have been duly forwarded to the RBI as its authorised representatives/officials. It cannot be said that the appellant-firm transferred such foreign exchange in contravention of section 8 when it entrusted foreign exchange to its employees who are duly authorised in this behalf, in connection with its business. Nor, for that reason the employees can be said to have acquired such foreign exchange entrusted to them by their employer in connection with the business of their employer moneychanger. Furthermore, apart from the statements of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectness of this has been challenged by the appellant. Without going into the correctness of this the learned Adjudicating Officer ought to have been taken into consideration the explanation furnished by the appellant as to the circumstances in which the TCs in question were countersigned. Admittedly these TCs have been acquired legally and it has not been controverted by the respondents in any manner. There is a force in the submissions made by Shri Jeevaratnam in this regard that these TCs, having been acquired legally and properly, could not have been sold unauthorisedly to anyone. Had it been the intention, the appellants could have kept these cheques blank instead of signing it twice. Furthermore signing of the cheques twice was not enough as could be seen from the Acceptor s Reference Guide of American Express, the relevant extracts of which are filed by the appellants as Ex. 18. Page 13 of the said Ex. contained guidelines regarding accepting American Express Travellers Cheques, relevant extract which reads as: Remember, if anything happens to disrupt the normal Watch and compare procedure, i.e., if a customer presents a Travellers Cheque that has already been countersigned . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
