TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>FEMA Section 42 Penalties Reduced for Unauthorized Foreign Remittances Treated as FDI Under SAFEMA</h1> <h3>M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd., Satyavati Berera, Shyamal Mukharjee, Deepak Kapoor, Ramesh Rajan, Ambarish Dasgupta and Shivam Dubey Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata</h3> M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd., Satyavati Berera, Shyamal Mukharjee, Deepak Kapoor, Ramesh Rajan, Ambarish Dasgupta and Shivam Dubey Versus The ... ISSUES: Whether non-refundable grants under various Grant Agreements qualify as Capital Account Transactions (CAT) under Section 2(e) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA, 1999).Whether receipt of such grants amounts to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and contravenes provisions of FEMA, 1999 and related Regulations.Whether crediting inward remittances received as grants into Exchange Earners Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account violates the Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Account by a Person Resident in India) Regulations, 2000 (Regulations 2000) and its amendments.Whether the adjudicating authority complied with Rule 4(3) and 4(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 (Adjudication Rules 2000) in issuing show-cause notice and conducting inquiry.Whether the penalty imposed under FEMA, 1999 and Regulations 2000 is excessive and disproportionate.Whether individuals holding positions of authority can be held liable under Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 for contraventions by the company. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Grants under GA-1 and GA-2 containing clauses imposing contingent liability to return funds if conditions are unmet qualify as Capital Account Transactions under Section 2(e) of FEMA, 1999, because they 'alter the assets or liabilities, including contingent liabilities' of a person resident in India.The receipt of such Capital Account Transactions without prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) constitutes contravention of Sections 6(2), 6(3), and 10(6) of FEMA, 1999.Credits of inward remittances received as grants into the EEFC account contravened Regulation 4 of the Foreign Currency Account Regulations, 2000, as amended, because such remittances were not 'earnings' but amounts received 'for meeting specific obligations by the account holder,' which are excluded from permissible credits to EEFC accounts.The adjudicating authority complied with Rule 4(3) and 4(4) of the Adjudication Rules, 2000 as the show-cause notice specified the nature of contraventions and applicable provisions, and the appellant's failure to timely respond did not invalidate the proceedings.The penalty of Rs. 230 Crores imposed on the company was found excessive and disproportionate; accordingly, it was reduced to Rs. 80.50 Crores.Penalties imposed on individual appellants under Section 42 of FEMA, 1999 for vicarious liability were upheld but reduced to amounts proportionate to their involvement; penalty on an employee without independent authority was set aside. RATIONALE: The legal framework applied includes FEMA, 1999, particularly Sections 2(e), 6(2), 6(3), 9(b), 10(5), 10(6), and 42; the Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Account by a Person Resident in India) Regulations, 2000 and its amendments in 2002, 2007, and 2015; and the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000.Section 2(e) defines Capital Account Transactions as those altering assets or liabilities, including contingent liabilities, outside India of persons resident in India. The contingent liability clauses in GA-1 and GA-2 triggered this classification.The Regulations 2000 and its amendments allow credits to EEFC accounts only for foreign exchange 'earnings,' excluding remittances received for specific obligations or investments, which the grants in question constituted.The adjudicating authority's procedural compliance was assessed against the requirements of Rule 4(3) and 4(4) of the Adjudication Rules, 2000, with the Tribunal holding that written reasons for issuing show-cause notice are not mandated, and the appellant's delayed response did not vitiate the process.The Supreme Court's prior observations and directions, including constitution of a Committee of Experts to examine the statutory framework concerning multinational accounting firms, were noted but did not preclude adjudication on the merits by the Tribunal.The Tribunal recognized the need for proportionality in penalty imposition, reducing penalties where found excessive relative to the contraventions and individual roles, consistent with principles of natural justice and fairness.
TaxTMI 