1999 (11) TMI 905 - AT - FEMA

Penalty on Firm Upheld for Violating Forex Laws; Partner Spared Double Punishment. Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance.

The Board upheld the penalty on the partnership firm for contravening the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, but set aside the penalty on the partner ... - Issues:1. Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.2. Validity of adjournment requests in appellate proceedings.3. Compliance with statutory requirements for maintainability of appeals.4. Imposition of penalties on a partnership firm and its partner.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the imposition of penalties on the appellant-firm for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and on the appellant in a separate appeal for contravention of section 68(1) of the Act. The penalties were imposed in an Adjudication Order dated 16-1-1995. The Board considered the penalties imposed and the statutory provisions under which they were levied.2. The appeals were scheduled for disposal on 13-10-1999, with the appellants seeking early hearing. However, adjournment requests were made by the Chartered Accountant representing the appellants, citing valid reasons for being unable to appear on the scheduled dates. Despite the adjournment requests, the Board decided not to grant further adjournments and proceeded to dispose of the appeals by a final order.3. The Board noted that the appellants failed to comply with the statutory requirements for maintainability of the appeals. Specifically, the appellants neither deposited the penalty amounts nor filed petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit as required by the Act. Due to this non-compliance, the Board deemed the appeals not maintainable and ineligible to be heard on their merits.4. Regarding the imposition of penalties on a partnership firm and its partner, the Board recognized that penalizing both the firm and the partner could result in double punishment, as the liability of the firm is to be discharged by the partners jointly or severally. In light of this, the Board invoked its jurisdiction under section 52(4) to set aside the penalty imposed on the partner while upholding the penalty on the firm. The appellant in one of the appeals was given a period of thirty days to pay the penalty amount failing which the respondents could recover it through legal means.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, compliance with statutory requirements, and the treatment of penalties in the context of partnership firms.