9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the directions of this Board as contained in its order of 14-9-1994 under which the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit was disposed of. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. In the show-cause notice dated 8-7-1985, in pursuance of which the adjudication proceedings were held against the appellant, the appellant was charged with contravention of section 18(2) for non-realisation of the proceeds of exports covered by 17 GRIs as listed in Annexure A to the show-cause notice. It is seen from the impugned order that the learned Adjudicating Officer has exonerated the appellant of the charge in respect of the GRIs at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Reserve Bank under its letter No. EC.JP.O.FU.349/88-89 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Adjudicating Officer in respect of other 5 GRIs, referred to herein. 4. In respect of GRI Nos. 021496, 022085 and 022086, the alternate buyer initially assured the payment of outstandings but later raised claims for discount on account of inferior quality of goods. It appears that the appellant approached the RBI for reduction of value. However, the appellant has been held guilty of the charge in respect of these GRIs for the reason that after approaching the RBI for reduction of value, there was no evidence of any further steps being taken by the appellant in respect of these exports. Shri Venkatraman, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that there was no dispute that the goods were not of the quality contracted for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant having applied for any extension of time. There is no dispute that the amount still remains outstanding. Shri Venkatraman conceded that since the appellant has not been able to produce any evidence of the efforts made by him for realisation of the outstandings in respect of export, he cannot defend the charge with any force. He, however, submitted that this being the only non-realisation attributed to the appellant, imposition of a token penalty would meet the ends of justice and in any case since the Adjudicating Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 75,000 for non-realisation of export proceeds relating to 10 GRIs, the amount should be proportionately reduced taking into account the total outstandings in respect of all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
