9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cement Directorate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The instant appeals are filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1973') challenging the common order passed in three appeals vide Appeal No. 76 of 2007, Appeal No. 77 of 2007 and Appeal No. 78 of 2007 decided on 16.01.2008 by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. 4. Vide the common order dated 16.01.2008, the Appellate Tribunal had partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants to the extent of firstly affirming the Order in original dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi, under the provisions of the Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of US$ 5,36,759.50 for the goods exported in the year 1997-98. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the exports were made for the year 1997-98 against eleven bills made to 5-6 parties of which the total proceeds comes to less than 5% of the total exports made by the appellants whose price is fully recovered. According to him, in terms of the policy framed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI') if the unrecovered price is less than 10% of the total value of the exports, the party shall be entitled to write off. According to him this policy of write off is what has not been properly appreciated by the two authorities while imposing penalty. 10. It was also the contention of learned counsel for the appellants tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be evident from paragraph No. 2 of the appeal, it would clearly reflect that respondent No. 2 had in fact issued the first show cause notice to the appellants on 23.01.2001 and the said date is well within the sunset period of two years prescribed under Section 49 (3) of the Act of 1999. The appellants have also submitted reply to the said notice on 01.12.2001, which again is within the sunset period itself, as in terms of Section 49 (3) of the Act of 1999 the proceedings could had been initiated up to 31.05.2002 which in the instant case was initiated on 23.01.2001 to which the appellant has also given his reply on 01.12.2001. 13. Hence, keeping in view the judgments of the various High Courts, firstly the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants on its face value. 15. Nonetheless, what is also reflected is that the Appellate Tribunal has already duly considered the contentions put forth by the appellants as also the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate and have held that since the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate did not point out the actual amount of export incentive availed by the appellants, they are also to some extent reasonable for non-compliance of the order of the RBI so far as the write off is concerned. Keeping this in mind, the Appellate Tribunal had substantially reduced the burden of penalty imposed in the Order in original to 1/3rd of what was imposed. This in the opinion of this B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
