Appellate tribunal upholds penalties under FEMA for non-compliance with pre-deposit rule

The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging penalties imposed under FEMA due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. While waiver was granted for certain entities, individual appellants were directed to make deposits. The tribunal found the appeals belated and only challenging consequential orders, leading to dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellants' refusal to make deposits despite the tribunal's direction resulted in the dismissal of the appeals on 08.05.2019, as the impugned order did not raise any legal questions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under FEMA
2. Challenge of penalties before appellate tribunal
3. Waiver of pre-deposit condition
4. Dismissal of appeals by appellate tribunal
5. Maintainability of appeals
6. Compliance with pre-deposit condition
7. Grounds for dismissal of appeals

Imposition of penalties under FEMA:
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under section 13 of FEMA against the appellants, directing different individuals and entities to pay varying amounts as penalties for violations.

Challenge of penalties before appellate tribunal:
The appellants challenged the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority before the appellate tribunal constituted under section 18 of FEMA. Applications for waiver of the pre-deposit condition under section 19(1) of FEMA were also made.

Waiver of pre-deposit condition:
The Appellate Tribunal accepted the waiver of pre-deposit for certain entities but directed the individual appellants to make the deposits under the general rule contained in the first proviso to section 19(1) of FEMA. The appellants neither challenged this order nor complied with it.

Dismissal of appeals by appellate tribunal:
The appeals came before the appellate tribunal for consideration, but due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction, the tribunal declined to entertain the appeals further and dismissed them on 08.05.2019.

Maintainability of appeals:
The respondent's counsel raised objections to the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that they were belated and that the orders being challenged were only consequential to the earlier order dated 15.11.2018, which had not been challenged.

Compliance with pre-deposit condition:
During the hearing, the counsel for the appellants was asked if they were willing to make the pre-deposits as directed by the appellate tribunal, to which the counsel responded negatively, stating that the appeals raised questions of law.

Grounds for dismissal of appeals:
As the order dated 15.11.2018 had attained finality and the appellants did not comply with the pre-deposit condition, the appellate tribunal had no choice but to dismiss the appeals on the grounds of non-compliance. The impugned order dated 08.05.2019 was found not to give rise to any question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

---