Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/417-418/AD/DRS/B/94 dated 29-11-1994 (despatched on 16-12-1994) under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 7(1) and (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The appellant has also been held guilty of contravention of section 8(1) and (2) of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 35,000 has been imposed therefor. The appellant has already deposited the total amount of Rs. 55,000. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 2. The adjudication proceedings in these cases were held in common in pursuance of two SCNs, viz., SCN-I and SCN-II. The charge of contravention of section 7(1) and (2) is contained in SCN-I whereas that of section 8(1) and (2) is contained in SCN-II. It is seen that the adjudicating authority has considered the charges in the order of SCN-II and SCN-I. I, therefore, propose to examine the findings of the adjudicating authority in that order. 3. At the outs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. AD/MAS/58/93 (MJ), dated 31-5-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 45,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The seized amount of Rs. 5,000 has been ordered to be adjusted towards the recovery of the amount of penalty leaving a balance of Rs. 40,000 yet to be paid. 2. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that it would cause undue hardship to the appellant if he is required to pre-deposit the balance amount of penalty. I, therefore, waived the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 40,000 and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The facts briefly are that on 4-12-1991 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, searched the residential premises of the appellant and recovered and seized a sum of Rs. 5,000. The appellant was examined under section 40 of the Act on the same day in respect of the seized Indian curren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals are directed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/68/B/SDE/PKA of 1998, dated 30-6-1998 under which a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs has been imposed on Sajjan Singh, (the appellant in Appeal No. 15 of 1999) for sale and purchase of foreign currency thereby contravening the provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). Appeal No. 16 of 1999 is directed against the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed under the same order on the appellant Shambu Singh for aiding and abetting Sajjan Singh for the contravention committed by him. 2. The memoranda of these appeals are accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, stay of the impugned order and waiver from pre-deposit of the penalty amounts. The delay in filing these appeals is of 138 days. Since this Board is prohibited, in terms of the proviso to section 52(2) of the Act, to condone the delay where an appeal has been filed after the expiry of 90 days of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Nahar, Member - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. ADE/MAS/46/96 (KMN), dated 16-7-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs is imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) along with an order of confiscation of the seized amount of Rs. 5,50,000, recovered during search, in terms of section 63 of the Act. 2. The appellant was permitted waiver of penalty deposit subject to a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 for hearing appeal per order dated 17-10-1997 passed by the FERA Board on the waiver application against which a Civil Writ Petition No. 2849 of 1998 was preferred before the Honble High Court of Madras. The Honble High Court disposed of this civil writ petition per order and judgment dated 28-8-1998 confirming the order dated 17-10-1997 of the FERA Board but granted 30 days from the date of the judgment for depositing the money. The appellant deposited Rs. 10,000 within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal has arisen from the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/203/B/DD/RAJ/93 dated 4-10-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) and a further penalty of Rs. 75,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 14 of the Act. The appellant has already deposited, by way of pre-deposit, a sum of Rs. 90,000 being the total amount of the penalties imposed on him. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The allegations on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the appellant are that during August 1989, one Dhimant Doshi of New York visited India to negotiate with various artists in India for performing in six shows in America that were organised by Krishan Lalwani of New York; that the appellant agreed with Doshi to participate in the said shows for remuneration at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per show; that towards his remuneration the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Nahar, Member - This appeal is directed against the Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/14/94, 22-2-1994 under which a penalty of Rs. 40,000 was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). 2. The appellant had been permitted to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000 in 3 instalments by the end of July 1996 per order dated 9-4-1996 passed by the FERA Board at Camp Chennai. Pre-deposit of the balance amount of penalty was waived. This amount stands deposited, the present order disposes the appeal on merits. 3. The facts are that a show-cause notice dated 21-1-1992 was issued to the appellant requiring him to show why adjudication proceedings should not be taken against him on the grounds that he received on different dates various sums of money totalling to Rs. 2,55,000 from some local person, name unknown, on the order and instructions of one Sadiq, a resident outside India in Kuwait and the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal has arisen from the adjudication order No. ADJ/135/B/SDE/PKA/97, dated 31-7-1997 despatched on 1-9-1997 under which a penalty of Rs. 1,60,000 has been imposed on the appellant-company for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A further penalty of Rs. 32 lakhs each has been imposed on the co-appellants by invoking provision of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. The appellants petition for pre-deposit had been disposed of under this Boards order dated 12-10-1998. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 3. The adjudication proceedings of this case were initiated with the issue of Memorandum of Show Cause (SCN) No. T-4/40-B/SDE/PKA/97 of 28-4-1997 wherein it is alleged that the appellant-company had exported goods worth Rs. 5,27,58,945 to various parties in England, Nigeria and Europe under different GR Forms as detailed in Annexure A to the Memorandum and that the company had failed to realise the full ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals are directed against Adjudication Order No. ADA/139/SDE/PKA/P/96, dated 26-8-1996 (disposed on 25-10-1996) under which the penalty of Rs. 7,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant-company for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A further penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the appellant in Appeal No. 368 of 1996 by invoking provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. The allegations against the appellant-company are that they failed to realise in full the proceeds of exports made by them to (a) Anglo Egyptian Motors, Egypt; (b) Ghana Airways Corporation, Ghana; (c) City Express Services, Ghana, and (d) Rites, Iraq. The appeals are accompanied with a petition seeking waiver from pre-deposit of the amount of penalty. 2. Shri Shyam Diwan, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted at the outset, that he is filing evidence to show that an outstanding amount of US $ 31,000 in respect of GRI No. GL 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. Addl. (APK)/111/93, dated 25-8-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The charges are based on the allegation that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 64,583 to Gurpal Singh (whose real name is alleged to be Surinderpaul Singh) in consideration of the receipt of Hongkong $ 29,356.26 by Ashok Kumar in Hongkong. 2. Shri S.C. Puri, the learned counsel for the appellant, stated at the outset that the appellant was also prosecuted by the department under section 56 of the Act for the same charges as were adjudicated under the impugned order but in view of the order made by the adjudicating authority exonerating the appellant of the charge of violation of section 8(1) of the Act, the learned ACMM framed the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) only; that on the appellants own plea, the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal together with the petition for waiver of pre-deposit has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/SDE/ZBN/7-10-B/90/891, dated 15-1-1990, under which a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs has been imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). A further penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i). The learned Adjudicating Officer has also ordered confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 63,000 and Rs. 60,000 in terms of section 63 of the Act. It is seen from the impugned order that the seized Indian currency amounted to Rs. 63,000 only out of which Rs. 3,000 had been duly accounted for. The appellant has also been held guilty of contravention of section 8(1) in respect of two amounts, namely, UAE Dhs. 500 and Dhs. 15 and Q. Riyals 34 but no penalty has been imposed for the said contravention. However, these foreign currencies have also been ordered to be...
Tag this Judgment!