Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson: 2. By this appeal the appellant has challenged adjudication order No. SDE(R)III/20/93 dated 19.2.1993 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 18(2) read with 18(3) FER Act on the reasons that appellant after exporting goods for the value of Rs. 15,87,724 failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds of the goods sent through 12 GRIs. The appellant has already pre-deposited the amount of penalty on 22.1.07. This statement of the appellant is confirmed by Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA. Presently this appeal is taken up by final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard Shri Rajesh Gulati, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA, on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. Shri Rajesh Gulati, Advocate, has also filed written submissions which are taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. This order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. This is an appeal filed against Adjudication Order No. ADM/SDE/147 TO 152/B/UPS/89/4846 dated 29th September, 1989 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 totaling to Rs. 14,00,000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(e), a penalty of Rs. 16,50,000 for contravention of 9(1)(f)(i) and a penalty of Rs. 1,45,000 for contravention of Section 8(1) FER Act, 1973, on the reasons that the appellant as resident of India, (1) made payment of US dollars 99539.60 and Singapore dollar 762 to different persons without any general or special permission from RBI and holding JCP bonds of US dollars 10000even after acquiring the status of a person resident in India, (2) received payment of Rs. 16,26,500 as consideration and in lieu of payment of US dollars 75000 and Singapore dollar 61663.40 ; a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh. R.N. Poddarm, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against adjudication Order No.SDE(SKP)III 66. 2004 dated 9.3.2004 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant besides separate penalty imposed on noticee company and other co noticee director of said company for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export products in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) r/w section 68 of FER Act, 1973. This tribunal vide order dated 29.7.04 after hearing argument directed the appellant to deposit the penalty amount within 60 days. It is stated (Sic) the Bar that the said order has been complied with though belatedly. Heard Shri Amit Prasad, Ld. advocate appearing for appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA for the respondent. 3. The main crux of argument of Shri Amit Prasad, Ld. advocate is that at the relevant time, the appellant was neith...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh. R.N. Poddar. Member. 2. Appeal against adjudication Order No. ADJ/657/DD(AKL)/B/2004 dated 20.5.04 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellant for the reason of failure to submit evidentiary proof of utilization of any import of goods for which foreign exchange acquired in contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973 r/w para 7A 20 (Chapter 7 of Export Control Manual) 3. It is stated that there is inordinate delay of more than 200 days in filing this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that the appellant had never received SCN stated to have been issued. Consequently no reply could be filed in response thereto. However, in the application for condonation of delay it is stated that the appellant came to know for the first time about the impugned order when the copy was received on or around 02.06.2004. On perusal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange : 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/336/B/SDE/AKB/2003/5835 dt. 07.08.03 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs only) against the appellant, Manoj C. Tejwani, for contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having received a sum of Rs.20,50,00 in India on instructions of a person resident outside India and besides confiscating the seized amount of Rs.13,00,000/ under Section 63 of the FERA. The appellant had made payment of 20% of the penalty amount in compliance of the order of this Tribunal where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri. J.S. Arora, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Shri. A.C. Singh, DLA, for the respondent and gone through the record, r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh R.N Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. ADJ/71 to 78/AD/KPD/1225/BAM dated 27.1.04 passed by Assistant 32000 on the appellant for the reason of acquisition of foreign exchange and otherwise transferring the same without special im general permission of RBI and also receiving payment locally in India by or under instructions of persons resident outside India in contravention of section 8(1).,8(2) and 9(1)(b) and section 14 of FER Act, 1973. By an order dated 8.4.08 this tribunal directed the appellant to deposit penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The appellant fails to appear or being represented despite notice. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA representing the respondent states that the appellant has failed to comply will the above order and submits for dismissal of this appeal for non compliance of conditional judicial order. 3. Sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1-2. These appeals are directed against common adjudication order No. ADJ/129/B/AD/AKL/99, dated 12-4-1999 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on the appellant firm and individual appellant in appeal Nos. 437/01 and 438/01 besides separate penalties imposed on co-noticees for the reason of failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilization of foreign exchange remitted in contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973. By an order dated 24-1-2008 this Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposit of penalty amounts. Despite notice the appellants failed to appear or being represented. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA representing the respondent submits that these appeals have been filed after delay of 1 and half years and are liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay in filing. He further submits for dismissal of these appeals for failure of the appellants to comply with the conditional judicial order. 3. Sub-section (2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1-2. By these appeals, appellants have challenged common Adjudication Order No. ADJ/14/2000 DD(KNS), dated 29-2-2000 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each on the appellants, i.e., partners of noticee firm for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export proceeds in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. By an order dated 17-3-2005, after hearing argument from Shri Atishi Dipankar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants this Tribunal permitted the appellants to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs each in their respective appeals within 60 days. It is stated that the appellants have made the pre-deposit. Despite notice appellants failed to appear or being represented. Dr. Shamshuddin, Ld. DLA appearing for the respondent states that on previous occasion, i.e., 1-1-2008, Shri Atishi Dipankar, Ld. Counsel sought adjournment to enable the appellants to obtain permission of write off from RBI. Shri Atishi Dip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: 2. These appeals are filed against common Adjudication Order No. ADJ/92/B/SDE/PKA/2001/794 dt.20.04.01 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) against Vadilal P. Shah (HUF), Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs only) against Hitendra V. Shah and Rs. 1,30,000 (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) each against Vadilal P. Shah, Smt. Alka H. Shah and Smt. Vasantben V. Shah for contravention of the provisions of Section 9 (1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants have made payment of the 20% of the amount of penalty, where presently these appeals are taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. This is the second round of litigation where the matter was earlier decided by this Tribunal vide its order dt. 01.04.03 which was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai vide its order dt.31.08...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi
1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange : 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/42/99/DD/US/1065, dated 30-12-1999 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) against the appellant, Gurmeet Singh for contravention of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having purchased and sold foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 14.5 lakhs. This appeal was filed along with application for dispensation from pre-deposit of penalty amount where the application was disposed of vide order of this Tribunal dated 3-3-2008 and the appellant was directed to deposit whole amount of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant has not complied that order till date. He was not even present today to apprise this Tribunal about the compliance of the said order...
Tag this Judgment!