9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 65-67/97/AD, dated 29-8-1997 under which a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed on the appellant-firm for contravention of section 18(2) and (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A further penalty of Rs. 25,000 each has been imposed on the second and third appellants by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) and (2) of the said Act. Notice of today's hearing was issued only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1997 but he held the appellant guilty for the reason that there was no evidence of further extension by the RBI and the export proceeds were still outstanding. 4. The appellant has not disputed the position that the proceeds of the said export are still outstanding but he has applied for further extension of time to the RBI. However, while invoking the jurisdiction under section 52(4), I am guid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are not disputed even by the adjudicating authority. 5. In view of the fact that foreign buyers have already deposited the amount in question with their bank but the bank is unable to remit the same due to the embargo of the Yemen Government, the appellant cannot be held liable for non-realisation of the said outstanding as the realisation of the same is beyond the control of the appellants. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
