9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exchange Regulatory Act, 1973 (in short "the Act of 1973"). It was alleged that M/s Sparkle Gems Industries (P) Ltd. Bombay failed to realize the export proceeds within a period of six months from the date of the export therefore it contravened Section 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) of the Act, 1973 was made. 2. M/s. Sparkle Gems Industries (P) Ltd. Bombay made the export of Diamond worth of Rs. 3,34,40,756 to Hongkong in the year 1989 but failed to realize the export proceedings. The penalty of Rs. 85 Lakhs was imposed on M/s Sparkle Gems Industries (P) Ltd. Bombay while Rs. 50 Lakhs on the appellants and another. 3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not an exporter and was not even having position in the company t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1973. It is alleging that M/s Sparkle Gems Industries (P) Ltd. Bombay failed to recover the export dues within the stipulated period of six months. So far, the appellant is concerned, he is said to be an export proceeds agent in the Diamond market. He cannot be said to be a part of the company defaulted in recovery of the proceeds of export. The fact aforesaid is born out from bare perusal of Para 22 of the impugned order which is quoted under: 22. The notice Shri Hasmukhlal M. Shah, while describing his role in the export of M/s Sparkle Gems Industries (P) Ltd. in his statement dt. 7.2.90 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has inter alia admitted that he was working as an export procedure agent in the diamond ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m while imposing penalty of 85 Lakhs on the company. 7. We don't find any material to allege contravention of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Act of 1973 by the appellant. The respondents have failed to show appellant's involvement in contravention of the presence of the Act of 1973. A scratchy order has been passed against the appellant in ignorance of his position which cannot be considered to be of the nature where contravention of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Act of 1973 could have been alleged against him. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, we cause interference of the impugned order quo the appellant and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside against the appellant. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
