Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal together with application for waiver of pre-deposit has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ. 229-B/SDE/PKA/96, dated 20-12-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. seven lakhs has been imposed on Shri Mohan S. Sadhwani the partner of the appellant firm. The allegations on which the appellants have been found guilty of contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (The Act), respec-tively, are that they failed to receive in India the full value of exports (aggregating to US $. 47224.62) made under the cover of 5 GRI forms as listed in the Annexure to the show-cause notice dated 14-2-1996. 2. Pleading waiver of pre-deposit Shri Rakesh Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants application for writing off was already pending active consideration of the Reserve Bank of India when the adjudication proceedings were initiated and evidence to that effect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Chandra, Chairman - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)/IV/127 of 1990, dated 11-5-1990 under which a penalty of Rs.3,75,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d), read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). Appellants application for pre-deposit was disposed of under this Boards order of 5-7-1993, read with the order of 5-11-1996. The appellant has since complied with the directions contained in the order of 5-7-1993. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. Briefly, the facts as disclosed from the record are that on receipt of reliable information from a reliable person that the appellant has been wandering in and around Ernakulam with certain tube money dealings, that he has been staying in Room No. 305 in Pampa Tourist Home and that he is in possession of some unauthorised tube money, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam, reached the said premises at 10.00 P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals together with dispensation applications have been filed against the common Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)III/30-43/92, dated 19-10-1992 under which various penalties on the appellants, aggregating to Rs. 3 crores and 22 lakhs, have been imposed for contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) mentioned in twelve show-cause notices which, together with two others, were the subject-matter of adjudication under section 50, read with section 51, of the Act. 2. After hearing the parties, we decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit in all the cases and proceeded to hear the appeals on merits. The reasons for which the waiver from pre-deposit was granted were that the impugned order was made ex parte without giving due opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves and that the adjudicating authority held adjudication proceedings considering the replies to the show-cause notices and forming an opinio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. These appeals together with dispensation application are directed against Adjudication Order No. 1/Adj/96-DD(KKK)/466-471 dated 31-1-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant in Appeal No. 94 of 1996 for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). A penalty of Rs. 90,000 each has been imposed on the remaining appellants in their capacity as partners of the appellant in Appeal No. 94 of 1996. 2. Shri Pradeep Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted at the outset that the impugned order is ex facie bad in law as the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. One day before the date of hearing which was fixed for 13-9-1995, the Managing Partner of the firm sent an application through courier requesting for adjournment of the case for a month as he was suffering from viral infection. He also appended a copy of the Doctors prescription in support of the application. However, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. These 12 appeals have been filed against 5 adjudication orders under which various penalties have been imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions as indicated below : Appeal No. Name of Appellant Provision contravened Penalty Amount 7/96 Rajendra Kumar Poonja S. 9(1)(a) 7,000 r/w 64(2) 8/96 -do- -do- 7,000 9/96 -do- -do- 8,000 10/96 -do- -do- 22,000 11/96 -do- -do- 22,000 370/95 Nanak S. Khanuja S. 9(1)(a) 10,000 371/95 Harvinder S. Khanuja -do- 7,000 372/95 Gopal Krishna Agarwal -do- 7,000 373/95 Narendra Khanuja -do- 7,000 Appeal No. Name of Appellant Provision contravened Penalty Amount 374/95 Narendra Khanuja S. 9(1)(a) 12,000 375/95 Vijay Kumar Jain -do- 7,000 376/95 -do- -do- 8,000 2. Except for the name of the parties and the amount involved in the alleged contravention, all these appeals arise out of similar facts and involve common issues. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all these appeals by a common order. 3. The applications for dispensing wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. These appeals together with applications for dispensing with the pre- deposit of penalty amount have been filed against adjudication order No. ADJ/253/MHK/AD/B/95, dated 30-12-1995 (despatched on 2-2-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 each has been imposed on the appellants for contravention of section 49(1), read with section 7, by invoking the provisions of section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). A penalty of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed on the Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. in their trade name Central Cottage Industries Emporium. However, the Central Cottage Industries Emporium is not an appellant before the Board. 2. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, the first appellant was the manager and the second appellant the cashier, both working in their respective capacity wi09th the Central Cottage Industries Emporium, Bombay. The charge against the Central Cottage Industries Emporium is that it violated the provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal together with dispensation application has been filed against Adjudication Order Nos. 178-179/95/DD dated 27-11-1995 (despatched on 2-1-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and further penalty of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on the appellant for two transactions of foreign exchange prohibited by section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. The appellant has sent an application dated 1-8-1996 stating that it is not possible for him to attend the hearing at Delhi due to his old age and paucity of funds. He has prayed that his application for waiver of pre-deposit and the appeal be disposed of after considering the synopsis of his written submissions and the record of the case. 3. Shri Gadoo is present for the respondents. He has been heard. 4. The appellant has stressed one of the several points on which he has assailed the impugned order and in my opinion that point itself, which appears from a bare perusal of the impugned order, is sufficien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This common appeal together with a common dispensation application has been filed against adjudication order No. 182/95/DD, dated 28-11-1995 (despatched on 8-1-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on M/s Dheklapara Tea Co. Ltd. for contravention of section 18(2) read with section 18(3)of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) for their failure to realise the amount of US $11,476.80 outstanding against the export made under the cover of CRI No. AC 050334. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the then director Shri Shameem Ahmed by invoking the provisions of section 68(1)of the Act. The other director Shri Jainul Ahmed has been exonerated of the charge. 2. I had heard this case on 12-8-1996 on dispensation application when Shri Asharfi appeared for Dheklapara Tea Company Ltd. as well as for Shri Shameem Ahmed. Shri Asharfi sought leave to file and to refer to the entire correspondence made by the company to show the efforts made by them towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarveshchandra, Chairman - The application for dispensing with the pre-deposit came up for disposal today. Shri Diwan, at the outset, filed three compilations of documents 'A', 'B' and 'C. He has also filed, to facilitate appreciation of his arguments, a statement showing realisable amounts of exports and their respective positions on date. The same position has been filed in a tabular form as Chart 'A' containing references of the relevant documents in respect of outstanding GRIs as also a Chart of export performance of the appellant for the years 198189. These documents are taken on record. Copies of these documents have been handed over to Shri Gadoo dasti 2. Shri Diwan for the appellants submitted that in support of the dispensation application he would not claim financial hardship. He submitted that it would cause undue hardship to the appellant if he is required to pre-deposit the amount of penalty as the impugned order is ex facie untenable in law. Elaborating his argument he su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. SDE (R) III/38-40/93 dated 31-3-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) on the allegations contained in Show-Cause Notice (SCN) No. 1. A further penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for the contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Act on the allegations contained in SCN II. The appellant was also served with another Show-Cause Notice, viz., SCN III under which he was charged for contravention of the provisions of section 16 but he was exonerated of the charge. 2. Shri Mittal, the learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded, at the outset, for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit on the ground that the impugned order is ex facie untenable. He elaborated that as stated by the learned Adjudicating Officer himself the allegation of contravention hinged on the ...
Tag this Judgment!