Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This appeal arises out of the adjudication order No. Adj. 65/AD/NSK/ B/87 dated 6-3-1987 whereby the Adjudication Officer confiscated US $ 500 (in travellers' cheques) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 on the appellant for contravention of section 8(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The records indicate that the appellant has deposited the penalty. Shri V.S. Thiageswaran, ALA. appearing for the respondent also confirms deposit of the penalty. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted search in the appellant's premises on 21-10-1985 and seized US dollars 500 in travellers' cheques. Statement of the appellant was recorded on that day in which he stated that he was issued the FTS by the RBI under FTS No. 208 of 1985 dated 25-1-1985 for his visit to Sri Lanka and Singapore, that he went to Singapore and Sri Lanka but he did not spend the FTS allowance as his expenses were met by his friends and relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. Arguments were heard. Since both the appeals are inter related, it would be appropriate to consider them together and make a common order. 2. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 30-10-1989 whereby a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed by the Adjudicating Officer jointly on the appellants for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). It is alleged that the appellants had exported goods during the year 1987 to Finland. They, however, failed to realise the export proceeds of US $ 4,530. Show-cause notice as required under section 51 of the Act was given to the appellant. As the Adjudicating Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant, adjudication proceedings were drawn against them. After having considered the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicating Officer held the appellants guilty of the contravention of section 18(2) on the basis of his following findings: (i) that the export proceeds of US $ 4,530...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Gupta, Chairman - This is an appeal against the order of Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi, dated 6-1-1989 whereunder the appellant was held liable for contravening the provisions of sections 8(1), 14 and 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') and a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs for contravention of section 8(1) and section 14 and another Rs. 6 lakhs for contravention of section 47 of the Act (totalling Rs. 12 lakhs) was imposed on the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and in all essential particulars analogous to those in Appeal No. 28 of 1989. The appellant R.R. Holdings (P.) Ltd., N. Delhi (RR) is a (P.) Ltd. Co. and had entered into an agreement with Sumitomo Corpn., Tokyo (SC) on 12-10-1984 whereunder RR agreed to render assistance and support services to SC in regard to the sales of their computer systems to the DOE, Government of India for which the appellant was to receive 6.25 per cent of the FOB value of the orders secured and executed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. Three memorandum Nos. T-4/694/Mas/Ban/82, T-4/695/Mas/Ban/82 and T-4/697/Mas/Ban/82 (briefly the SCNs I, II and III) were issued to the appellant by the Enforcement Directorate, Madras (department) alleging that he was maintaining accounts in foreign currency abroad without repatriating the same to India within the period prescribed or without obtaining the exemption of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for maintaining such accounts abroad and thereby contravened the provisions of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) read with the Central Government. Notifications referred to therein. Memorandum No. T-4/696/Mas/Ban/82(SCN-IV) was issued to the appellant by the Department alleging that he failed to surrender the foreign exchange mentioned therein which he brought from abroad within the prescribed period and thereby contravened the provisions of section 14 of the Act. It was also alleged that he had defaulted to surrender the foreign exchange brought by him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
Venkatasubramanian, Chairman - This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, finding the appellant Shri Valliappan guilty of an attempt to contravene the provisions of section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on that account. 2. By the Boards direction of 24-2-1976, it was ordered that in view of the financial position of the appellant it would be sufficient if he deposited a sum of Rs. 300 on account of penalty. This having been done, judgment is now pronounced on the merits. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to deal with the question of limitation. The memorandum of appeal was received in the Registry of the Board on 1-8-1974. The order under appeal purports to have been despatched on 27-4-1974. The appellant had filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was not served on him personally though it indicates that it was to be sent to him. However, a copy of the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This is an appeal by Shri L.K.R. Alagappa Chettiar against the order of the learned Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for contravention of the provisions of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (the Act). 2. The case for the department is as follows. On the basis of certain information, the premises of the appellant were searched but no documents or other material were seized. However, on interrogation, he admitted to the Enforcement Officers that before coming to India in March, 1968, he handed over a sum of $ 6,000 to a party in Malaysia with instructions that he should be given Rs. 20,000 in India and that this sum was, accordingly, received by him. The motive for resorting to this transaction is the gain of Rs. 5,000 which would accrue by resort to unauthorised channels. 3. However, during the course of adjudication proceedings, the appellant denied that the statement was genuine and voluntary. Nevertheless, ...
Tag this Judgment!