All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10241 to 10260 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.