9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of Rs. 20,55,921. The amount outstanding is Rs. 4,12,003. A further penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the second appellant in his capacity of being the person in-charge and responsible for the export activities of the first appellant. 2. Shri Gulati, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has a strong case to succeed in appeal as the impugned order is contrary to the facts on record. He submitted that the learned Adjudicating Officer did not consider the evidence supplied by the appellants in their reply to the show-cause notice and that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant showed that the matter of write off of the balance outstanding was under consideration of the Reserve Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the appellant. 4. After considering the submissions made by the parties and a perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions made by Shri Gulati. It cannot be disputed that the learned Adjudicating Officer has not considered the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant in support of the efforts made by him for realisation of export proceeds. It is seen that the exports in question were made against L/C. There is no evidence that the appellant altered the terms of L/C. It was for the appellant's bankers to insist on the full payment of L/C whereas they accepted 80 per cent of the amount leaving 20 per cent remaining outstanding. It is, therefore, not justified to blame the appellant for acceptance of onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teps to recover the outstanding amount. In view thereof, if there is evidence of an exporter having taken steps to recover the outstanding amounts which in the circumstances of a particular case were reasonably possible, he cannot be said to have contravened the provisions of section 18(2) irrespective of whether the RBI has granted permission to write off the outstanding amount or not. In cases where the permission to write off has been granted by the RBI, the question of initial presumption under 18(3) itself does not arise as section 18(2) can be attracted where there is no permission of RBI. 5. During oral submissions, both the parties submitted that in view of the RBI's letter of 16-3-1995, the case may be remanded for fresh adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
