2006 (8) TMI 701 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal Upholds Liability for Export Proceeds Violation, Reduces Penalty Due to Financial Hardship and Case Antiquity.

Smt. Jasleen Kaur Versus Director, Enforcement Directorate

The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of violating sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973, for failing to realize outstanding export proceeds. ... - Issues: Violation of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 for not realizing outstanding export proceeds, liability of partners in a dissolved firm, imposition of penalty, rebuttal of presumption under section 18(3).Analysis:The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant, a partner in a firm that exported goods in 1980-81, failed to take reasonable steps to realize outstanding export proceeds. The appellant argued that the firm was dissolved in 1984, transferring all assets and liabilities to another partner, absolving her of any obligation. However, the Enforcement Directorate contended that the appellant, being a partner at the time of exports, remained responsible for realizing the outstanding proceeds. The appellant's plea was based on a personal agreement between partners, which was deemed insufficient to absolve her of liability under the FER Act.The Tribunal noted that the appellant continued as a partner in the firm until 1984, failing to make any efforts to realize the outstanding export proceeds within the prescribed period. Despite the appellant's argument about a personal agreement, the Tribunal held her responsible for the firm's conduct during her tenure. The Tribunal emphasized that partners are jointly and severally liable for firm actions, rejecting the appellant's attempt to evade liability based on subsequent agreements made after the export transactions. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of contravening sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act due to her failure to take necessary steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds.Considering the appellant's financial hardships and the antiquity of the case, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, which had already been paid by the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, modifying the penalty amount and directing the pre-deposited sum to be appropriated towards the reduced penalty. The judgment highlighted the appellant's ongoing liability as a partner in the firm during the relevant period, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling obligations under the FER Act despite subsequent changes in firm ownership or partnerships.