Tribunal rules on FEMA contravention, reduces penalties, clarifies liability

The Tribunal found the appellants liable for contravening Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 by failing to repatriate export proceeds but dismissed allegations of contravention of other sections and regulations. Penalties imposed were reduced due to lack of reasoning and excessive amounts. The Managing Director was held liable based on designation, while the Executive Director's penalty was set aside. The Tribunal clarified the responsibility of obtaining a no objection certificate lies with the authorized dealer, not the appellants. The impugned order was modified, and adjustments or refunds of pre-deposits were granted to the appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999.
2. Alleged violation of Regulations 3, 8, 9, and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 13 of FEMA, 1999.
4. Liability of Managing Director and Executive Director under Section 42(1) of FEMA, 1999.
5. Authority and procedure for obtaining no objection certificate from the Enforcement Directorate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999:
The appellants were accused of failing to realize and repatriate export proceeds amounting to US $1,27,384.20 within the prescribed period, violating Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999. The Tribunal found no specific allegation or evidence of violation of Section 7 by the appellants, thus deeming the Enforcement Directorate's claim unsustainable. However, the Tribunal upheld the contravention of Section 8, as the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence of bona fide attempts to realize the export proceeds.

2. Alleged violation of Regulations 3, 8, 9, and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000:
The Tribunal examined the relevant clauses of the Regulations, 2000 and found no evidence of violation of Regulations 3, 8, 9, and 13 by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the RBI had approved write-offs for most GRI forms, except two, subject to obtaining a no objection certificate from the Enforcement Directorate. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were wrongly indicted for contravention of these regulations.

3. Imposition of penalties under Section 13 of FEMA, 1999:
The Special Director imposed penalties of Rs. 40,00,000 on the company and Rs. 5,00,000 each on the Managing Director and Executive Director under Section 13 of FEMA, 1999. The Tribunal found the penalties excessive and arbitrary, as no reasons were provided for the determination of the amounts. Considering the long gap since the transactions, the Tribunal reduced the penalties to Rs. 30,00,000 for the company and Rs. 3,00,000 for the Managing Director, while setting aside the penalty against the Executive Director.

4. Liability of Managing Director and Executive Director under Section 42(1) of FEMA, 1999:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for specific evidence of the roles and involvement of the Managing Director and Executive Director in the company's affairs. The Tribunal found no discussion or evidence of the Executive Director's involvement, thus setting aside the penalty against him. However, the Tribunal held the Managing Director liable due to his designation and presumed involvement in the company's activities.

5. Authority and procedure for obtaining no objection certificate from the Enforcement Directorate:
The Tribunal clarified that the authorized dealer (State Bank of Mauritius) was responsible for obtaining the no objection certificate from the Enforcement Directorate, not the appellants. The Special Director, acting as the Adjudicating Officer, had no authority to grant or refuse the no objection certificate. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in LIC v. Escorts Ltd., emphasizing that the RBI alone decides on granting permissions related to foreign exchange.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order, holding the company and the Managing Director liable for contravention of Section 8 of FEMA, 1999, and reducing the penalties accordingly. The penalty against the Executive Director was set aside. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the appellants were entitled to adjustments or refunds of any pre-deposits made.

---