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=764833 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764833 Offence under FERA - appellant company got involved in acquisition of foreign exchange and its borrowing without permission of Authorised Dealer or of the Reserve Bank of India - penalty imposed on contravention of section 8(1) - element of acquisition and transfer of the foreign exchange of US$ 28,26,433.26 coupled with the allegations of borrowing of foreign exchange amounting to US$ 3,33,025 and 7,068.38 HELD THAT:- The draft of US$ 333025 and 3270.20 and 3798.18 were utilized for payment of customs duty. However, the earlier draft was received from M/s Tata Industries USA and other two drafts from M/s Tata Ltd. London and Sh. Raj Kadan of M/s Tata Inc. who played vital role in arranging the remittances. It is also a case that the appellant company acquired and transferred foreign exchange of US$ 28,26,433.26. The authority thus passed the impugned order holding the contravention. We do not find any error in findings and otherwise the judgment cited by the appellant would not support a case of civil nature but can be handful in prosecution or criminal case. In substance, we find contravention in Section 8(1) of the Act of 1973 for arranging and transferring foreign exchange. Penalty imposed on the appellant company u/s 8(1) of the Act of 1973 for acquiring and transferring of foreign exchange with separate penalty for violation of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1973 towards the borrowing of foreign exchange of US Dollars and Sterling Pounds - The appellant company has already deposited 25% of the penalty amount to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit. It was in pursuance to the order of the Calcutta High Court. We find this case to be old by more than 20 years and looking at all the facts, we find a case to make penalty proportionate. It is looking to appeal, evidence available on record and the peculiarity of the facts and thereby we cause interference in the penalty and reduce it to 25% of the amount of penalty imposed by the authority. The amount aforesaid has already been satisfied by the appellant company. Hence the present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid. Separate Penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1973 for different amount - It is for acquisition and also for borrowing. The respondents have, however, failed to show any role of the appellant, Mr. Ishaat Hussain to implicate him as one of the violators of the provisions. He has not been shown to be incharge of the Company or was monitoring the affairs of the company for purchase of the aircraft. The respondents have implicated him for the sake of it without clarifying his role. In the light of aforesaid, we find a case in his favour to cause interference in the impugned order qua Mr. Ishaat Hussain and accordingly the impugned order is set aside qua the appellant. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530