https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758787 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758787 Contravention of Sections 8 (3) r/w 8(4) and 9(1) (b) of FERA - illegal foreign exchange remittance abroad in the garb of charges being paid for the imports of the goods which never occurred - Composite penalty for contraventions. HELD THAT:- We find that Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA are worded in terms of a person and there is no usage of importer . Similarly, Section 9(1)(b) is also worded in terms of a person . In the present case the Respondent Directorate had various statements before it, which conveyed that more than one concern was being controlled and owned by the Appellant Shri R.K. Verma. The investigations evoked suspicions as to fraud having been committed in filing of forged bills of entry with the bank. Hence, it became imperative to unearth the truth. It is, therefore, important for us to determine whether the remittances which were actually released were by Shri Verma, either directly or indirectly, and whether he was the person as has been referred to in the aforementioned Sections. Whether the bills of entry to demonstrate that the goods had actually been imported against the remittances made, were deposited or not with the bank ? - Appellants have claimed that these bills were in fact deposited with the bank but went missing. The Appellants have also maintained that the bills were not available since the prescribed period for its retention was over and in any case the bills had already been audited. However, the bank lodged a FIR with the Police for the missing import documents. The counter allegation is that the theft of the missing import documents was caused so to prevent detection of forgery. The Police failed to bring the case to conclusion. In fact, to raise this issue so as to contend that the bills of entry could have demonstrated that the imports of the goods occurred is to deviate from the correct evaluation of evidence on record. The documents from the bank clearly demonstrate that the amounts were remitted in the name of M/s. MICO Enterprises and M/s. Diamount. The reports from the Customs Department show that no diamonds were imported against the impugned remittances. Hence the question about the availability of the bills of entry is not germane to determine whether imports occurred against the impugned remittances. From the statements of Shri Vinod A. Shah it is clear that Shri R.K. Verma met him in Antwerp in the last quarter of 1990 and requested him to open a Company for him. He therefore opened a firm by name M/s. Diamblue in which major shareholder was Shri Rajesh Verma, a person introduced by Shri R.K. Verma. It therefore appears that M/s. Diamblue which received the remittances made by M/s. Diamount was in fact under the control of the Appellant Shri R.K. Verma. The inference that follows is about the key role that the Appellant Shri R.K. Verma played in the entire modus operandi to illegally remit the foreign exchange abroad in the garb of charges being paid for the imports of the goods which never occurred. Thus, we find that the contraventions of Sections 8 (3) read with 8(4) and 9(1) (b) of FERA are established against the Appellant Shri R.K. Verma and contraventions of Sections 8 (3) read with 8(4), 9(1) (b) and 64(2) of FERA are established against Shri R.A. Soni. We therefore, find no merit in the two Appeals. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530