9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The penalty on the second, third and fourth appellants had been imposed in their capacity as Directors of the first appellant by invoking the provisions of section 68(1). 2. Initially the appellant had filed a common appeal which has been registered as Appeal No. 85 of 1995 but on the advice of the Registry they have filed three separate appeals on behalf of 2nd, 3rd and 4th appellants. The appellants have deposited the total amount of penalty of Rs. 25,000 as communicated to the Dy. Director, Delhi Zone Office under their advocate's letter dated 3-4-1995. This common order disposes of all the appeals on merits. 3. The allegation against the appellant as contained in the memorandum of show-cause dated 23-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces in which they had to transfer the said amount. The evidence of RBI's letter dated 31-3-1992 was on the record of the Adjudicating Officer and he has taken note of that letter while considering the question of transfer of the amount of US $17236.92. I have seen this letter of the RBI and in view of the transfer having been accepted by the RBI the question of the allegation of the transfer of the said amount without RBI's permission is not tenable. The appellant, therefore, cannot be held guilty of contravention of section 8(1), read with section 16(1), in respect of the said amount of Syrian Pounds 6249.41. 5. In regard to the allegation of excess payment of US $2107 towards agency commission it has been submitted that the appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts should have obtained the permission of the RBI for making payment in lump sum instead of on pro rata basis. It has been asserted that the appellants have not paid more than 5 per cent of the total contract value. The deviation was in the manner of payment, that is, in excess of pro rata from out of the payments received by the appellants. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to say that the appellant has paid excess amount of commission. The question arises whether the payment was made in the manner approved by the RBI. It is seen that the entire facts were brought to the notice of the RBI while submitting the final statement of accounts and the RBI vide their letter dated 31-3-1992 accepted their statement and treated the case as close ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel, with approval of the RBI. The RBI had even sanctioned foreign exchange of US $9,000 for meeting the legal expenses. A copy of this sanction letter was on the record of the Adjudicating Officer. The appellants lost the case and the outcome was also duly reported to the RBI. In view thereof the question of contravention of section 16(1) in respect of the amount of Syrian Pounds 18438.58 not paid to the agent does not arise. Since the amount was not paid, there can be no question of contravention of section 8(1) in respect of this amount. Again, since the amount was attached and later on decreed in favour of the Syrian authorities, the appellants had been interacting with and kept the RBI posted with the development, the question of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
