Company and directors liable under FERA for unauthorized foreign loan and fictitious remittance violations

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld contraventions under FERA against the appellant company and individual directors. The tribunal rejected challenges to using Income Tax Department documents as evidence, citing statutory provisions allowing cross-use of documents between proceedings. The company was found guilty of violating Section 9(1)(c) for accepting a temporary loan of US $5 lakhs from a US citizen without RBI exemption. Two individual appellants were held liable under Section 68(1) for their roles in the transactions. One director was additionally found guilty under Section 8(1) for arranging a fictitious remittance of US $1 lakh from a non-existent Hong Kong company. The tribunal confiscated the US $1 lakh as unexplained and tainted funds under Section 63 of FERA.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of documents received from the Income Tax Department.
2. Nature of the transfer of US $ 5 lakhs from Shri J L Kothari to the Appellant Company.
3. Contravention of Section 9(1)(c) of FERA by the Appellant Company and individuals.
4. Contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA by Shri Vikram Singh.
5. Impact of the discharge by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the current proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Documents:
The appellants argued that documents received from the Income Tax Department are not admissible as evidence in FERA proceedings. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in KTMS Mohammad, which held that evidence obtained under the Income Tax Act cannot be used in FERA proceedings. However, the respondent countered by invoking Section 72 of FERA, which allows documents seized under any other law to be admissible in FERA proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the admissibility of these documents, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation in KTMS Mohammad and Section 72 of FERA.

2. Nature of the Transfer of US $ 5 Lakhs:
The appellants claimed that the transfer of US $ 5 lakhs from Shri J L Kothari was an investment in the equity capital of the Appellant Company, supported by a MoU and RBI guidelines. However, the Tribunal found that Shri J L Kothari was a US citizen, not an NRI, making the cited RBI guidelines inapplicable. The Tribunal noted that the funds were transferred to another company, M/s Neptune Estate Pvt. Ltd., shortly after receipt, rendering the MoU irrelevant. The Tribunal concluded that the transfer was a temporary loan, not an investment, violating Section 9(1)(c) of FERA.

3. Contravention of Section 9(1)(c) of FERA:
The Tribunal determined that the Appellant Company contravened Section 9(1)(c) of FERA by accepting a temporary loan from a foreign citizen without RBI permission. Shri R C Jain, as the Director, and Shri Vikram Singh, who knew Shri J L Kothari and was involved in the transactions, were also held responsible under Section 9(1)(c) read with Section 68(1) of FERA.

4. Contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA by Shri Vikram Singh:
The Tribunal found that US $ 1 lakh received from Shri Rakesh Saxena, a non-existent person, was arranged by Shri Vikram Singh himself. The Tribunal upheld the contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA against Shri Vikram Singh, noting that the overseas enquiry confirmed the non-existence of M/s Real Fact Enterprises and Shri Rakesh Saxena. The Tribunal also upheld the confiscation of US $ 1 lakh under Section 63 of FERA.

5. Impact of Discharge by ACMM:
The appellants argued that the ACMM's discharge of the prosecution complaint should influence the current proceedings. However, the Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court judgments in Standard Chartered Bank and Radheshyam Kejriwal, held that adjudication and prosecution under FERA are independent. The Tribunal concluded that the outcome of the prosecution proceedings does not bind the adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the penalties imposed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. The Tribunal found the appellants guilty of contravening Sections 9(1)(c) and 8(1) of FERA, with the evidence and circumstances supporting the findings of the adjudicating authority.

---