Appellate Tribunal sets aside FEMA order on overseas investment, remands case for fresh adjudication considering automatic route provisions

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside an order regarding alleged FEMA contraventions for unauthorized direct investment outside India. The case involved investment in an overseas joint venture through purchase of existing shares on deferred payment basis. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the third mode of direct investment under FEMA regulations and did not adequately examine whether the investment qualified under the automatic route, negating need for RBI permission. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of relevant legal provisions and reasoned decision-making.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged contraventions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and related regulations by Indian entities in forming a joint venture in Cyprus.
2. Validity of the investment mode chosen by the appellants under FEMA regulations.
3. Interpretation of "bona fide business activity" in relation to the credit facilities availed by the joint venture.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under FEMA for overseas direct investment and provision of corporate guarantees.
5. Consideration of post facto approval and the implications of such approvals by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Contraventions of FEMA:

The proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement were based on a complaint regarding the formation of a joint venture (JV) in Cyprus by Indian entities without remittance for equity subscription, leading to alleged violations of FEMA. The Special Director of Enforcement found the appellants guilty of contraventions, including unauthorized direct investment outside India and providing guarantees for loans without equity contributions in the JV. Penalties were imposed on the entities and their directors for these violations.

2. Validity of the Investment Mode:

The appellants contended that their investment in the JV through the purchase of existing shares on a deferred payment basis was a valid mode under Regulation 2(e) of FEMA 120/2004. They argued that this mode did not require prior RBI permission as it was covered under the automatic route. The adjudicating authority was criticized for not considering this third mode of direct investment outside India.

3. Interpretation of "Bona Fide Business Activity":

The appellants challenged the finding that the credit facilities availed by the JV were not for bona fide business activities. They argued that the term "bona fide business activity" is undefined in FEMA and should be interpreted in common parlance. The investment in Welspun Power and Steel Ltd. was claimed to be legitimate and in line with the JV's purpose of exploring global opportunities in steel and textiles.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:

The appellants argued that the procedural requirements for overseas direct investment and the provision of corporate guarantees were met. They claimed that the RBI was informed of their investment through the authorized dealer, and the provision of guarantees was within legal bounds. The appellants also highlighted the RBI's post facto approval for financial commitments without equity contributions.

5. Consideration of Post Facto Approval:

The appellants received post facto approval from the RBI following a Bombay High Court order, allowing for financial commitments without equity contributions. They argued that this approval should have been considered by the adjudicating authority, as it demonstrated compliance with FEMA regulations. The appellants contended that the impugned order failed to account for this development.

Conclusion:

The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments, particularly regarding the consideration of the third mode of investment and the interpretation of "bona fide business activity." The tribunal noted that the impugned order lacked clarity on these aspects and decided to set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the need for a reasoned order after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity to be heard, while also allowing for the possibility of compounding if permissible under law. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

---