Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the penalty of Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.10,000 imposed on the Appellant under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for contraventions by the company is sustainable.
Analysis: The Appellant was the chief financial officer during the relevant period and admitted active participation in the transactions by statements under Section 37 of the Act. The penalty was imposed under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for contraventions established against the company. The applicable legal framework includes Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which provides for civil penalties where mens rea is not a statutory requirement. The Tribunal applied the principle that once contravention of a statutory civil obligation is established, intention is irrelevant for imposition of penalty, relying on established precedent that civil penalties under regulatory statutes do not require proof of guilty intention. Having found the Appellant's active role and the establishment of contraventions, the Tribunal nevertheless exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to achieve proportionality and adjusted the pre-deposit against the reduced amount.
Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the Appellant is partially set aside by reducing the amount to Rs.1,01,000 and the pre-deposit made shall be adjusted against the reduced penalty; the appeal is partly allowed in favour of the Appellant.