TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions that the first proceeding is in the nature of departmental enquiry and in the second proceedings, the department is one of the parties and the dealer is another party. The facts of the case are summarily as follows : The appellant is a dealer in goat hair. He has obtained necessary permission from the official authorities to send various consignments of that commodity to several places in the East European countries, namely Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This happened in the year 1969. On November 5, 1970, the business premises of the appellant were searched and certain incriminating documents were found and seized. These documents disclosed that goat hair purported to be sent ostensibly to soft currency areas were actually unloaded in and meant for West European countries and hard currency areas. It was also found that in every case the appellant received export proceeds in rupees. Originally, a show cause notice under section 12(1) was issued to the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking to quash the show cause notice which related to contravention of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act also. The writ petition was allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 12(2)(b) Rs. 1,000 Section 10(1)(b) 113/80 140 bales Hungrotex Budapest . Mayfield Oxford 40681/18 Rs. 4,000 Section 12(2)(b) Rs. 2.000 Section 10(1)(b) 114/80 118 bales Hungrotex Budapest -do- Arthur 15665/97 23650/28 Rs. 3,000 Section I2(2)(b) Rs. 1,500 Section 10(1)(b) 115/80 i) 87 bales ii) 88 bales Centrotex Prague Jabalw Germany 23186/17 Rs. 4,000 Section 12(2)(b) Rs. 2,000 Section 10(1)(b) The dealer preferred appeals before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, Southern Zone, Madras. The Board, after hearing the parties, the dealer being represented by an advocate and the Department being represented by an officer, came to the conclusion that there were contraventions of both the provisions of the Act, but however, taking into account the circumstances of the case found that the penalty was excessive and accordingly, reduced the penalties as follows: Appeal No. 107/80 From Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 Reduced to Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 respectively Appeal No. 108/80 From Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 Reduced to Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 respectively. Appeal No. 109/80 From Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 Reduced to. Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances were pleaded by the appellant to show that there was really a denial of natural justice on this count. Though it is a matter of regret that the adjudicating authority has taken so much of time, we find it impossible to interfere with the order only on account of this delay. Turning now to the other aspect of the appeals, namely that the decision of the authorities below are based on assumptions, we find that as far as the contravention of section 10(1)(b) is concerned, there is a clear finding by the adjudicating authority that there was an understanding between the appellant and the dealers in the West European countries. The documents also reveal that the dealer had full knowledge that the goods were being sent to the buyers in the West European countries. As far as contravention of section 12(2)(b) is concerned, there is only a cursory sentence in the order of the adjudicating authroity to the extent of saying that the dealer had failed to repatriate the export proceeds in the prescribed manner as shown in Sehedule A of the notification referred to above. The Appellate Board has concentrated its reasoning only on the question whether the goods actually reached West Eu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction is concerned, it is the admitted case of the Department that the goods were intended to be shipped to Rupee currency areas and that the corresponding amount has been received. It has not been shown what really the contravention under section 12(2)(b) amounted to. The order of the adjudicating authority refers to the failure of repatriation of export proceeds in the prescribed manner as shown in Schedule A of the notification. That Schedule A is not available in the record, nor has learned counsel for the respondent been able to place it before us, in order to enable us to find out whether any manner of payment has been prescribed by the Rules and whether payment in this case has been made otherwise than in such prescribed manner. As per the case of the Department, the transaction was authorised on condition that the corresponding value of the goods exported should be repatriated in rupees and it is admitted that that condition has been fulfilled. Because the goods actually landed in hard currency areas, hard currencies became recoverable by the dealer and by not receiving it, he committed a contravention of section 10(1)(b). But no contravention of section 12(2)(b) has bee....