1995 (11) TMI 492 - AT - FEMA

Appeal Wins: Tribunal Overturns Rs. 6 Lakhs Penalty Due to Inaccuracies; Evidence Shows Export Proceeds Realized.

Smt. Sushila Kanodia Versus Director of Enforcement

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Adjudication Order that imposed a Rs. 6 lakhs penalty for alleged non-realization of export proceeds. ... - Issues:- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalty for non-realization of export proceeds- Application for dispensation from pre-deposit requirement- Allegations of non-realization of export proceeds covered by specific GRI numbers- Arguments regarding realization of export proceeds and compliance with regulations- Discrepancies in the findings of the Adjudicating Officer- Evidence of realization provided by the appellant's bank- Decision on the appeal and penalty imposedAnalysis:The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the appellant for non-realization of export proceeds, contravening the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant sought dispensation from the pre-deposit requirement. The charge was based on the appellant's alleged failure to realize proceeds from exports covered by specific GRI numbers. The appellant's counsel argued that the findings in the order were contrary to facts, and the order was made without considering evidence provided during the investigation. It was contended that the appellant had realized the proceeds from two exports in 1986 and had informed relevant authorities about it. The appellant's bank confirmed the realization of the entire amount due against the exports.The respondents argued that the charge was for delayed realization of export proceeds. However, the Tribunal found that the charge was for non-realization based on the Adjudicating Officer's findings. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the findings, as the appellant had made exports under two GRI numbers, not three as stated in the order. The evidence provided by the appellant's bank confirmed the complete realization of the export proceeds, contrary to the information relied upon by the Adjudicating Officer.Considering the evidence of realization provided by the bank and the discrepancies in the findings, the Tribunal concluded that the findings in the impugned order could not be sustained. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, highlighting the factual inaccuracies and lack of substantiation in the charge of non-realization of export proceeds.