9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So Seerano Avenue, Los Angeles, California, USA. A further penalty of Rs. 15,000 each has been imposed on the two partners of the appellant firm, namely, Chandresh Parekh and Kirit Shah, by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. It appears from the record that another exporter, Ramesh Bros., Patel Building, Churni Road, Raja Manohar Marg, Bombay had also exported diamonds under 2 GRIs totalling to US $86,429 to the same party, namely, Laxmi Diamonds of USA. It further appears that the foreign party failed in making payment to Ramesh Bros., as well in respect of exports made by that firm. Therefore, Ramesh Bros. and through them the present appellant initiated legal action against the foreign buyer and succeeded in striking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached Gem Jewellery Corporation and Indian Consulate, San Francisco, for settling the matter. They filed a suit in the Supreme Court of California to realise the payments and finally they succeeded in reaching a settlement whereby the foreign buyer was to export rough emeralds US $69,675 in settlement of proceeds of US lm3 2m 842.25 (sic) (US $86,529.00 in respect of the noticee firm and US $46,313.25 in respect of M/s. C.P. Diamonds their sister concern). I also find that the noticee approached RBI and RBI vide their letter dated 20-1-1994 consented to the settlement subject to obtaining licence from DGFP, for import of rough emeralds. Noticee No. 2 at the time of personal hearing submitted copy of the CCP licence dated 30-8-1996 issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusions drawn by the learned Adjudicating Officer in this case were influenced by an inadvertent factual error in respect of the date of the outstanding GRI. In the impugned order, the date of impugned GRI No. GL. 380854 is mentioned as 17-4-1984 whereas the correct date of this GRI is 17-4-1989. Apparently this factual error led the learned Adjudicating Officer to make the observations that though some efforts were made, yet no efforts were made for 7 years from 1984 to 1991 for which the noticee is fully responsible on account of not taking any action against the foreign buyer. 6. In view of the position as brought out herein before which appears from the record of the case, the impugned order, on the face of it, cannot be sustained. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
