TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the provisions of sections 6(4), 6(5), 73(3), 49 and 9(1)(e) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Paras 29(B), 8(c) of Exchange Control Manual, 1987 (as amended). 2. A show-cause notice was issued against the appellant along with other noticee because of accepting foreign exchange deposit in NRI account through a person other than the account holder in the year 1992-93, alleging : "AND WHEREAS it appears that the said Mr. S. Sivakumar, a person other than an authorized dealer in foreign exchange, without the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India, otherwise acquired foreign exchange equivalent to Indian Rupees 38,45,792 in India being the amount of foreign exchange found deposited in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also submitted that the alleged irregularity was committed by the bank in the year 1992-93. The show-cause notice was issued by the department after about 10 years in 2002. The bank was not obliged to maintain records and was not having all the records with it to present its case. The rules regarding maintenance of records, framed by Reserve Bank of India, obliged banks to maintain records only of 8 previous years. Reliance was placed on the relevant Rules, i.e. The Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985, notified on 29-3-1985, wherein maximum period for maintenance of records for all kinds of registers etc. was stated to be not less than 8 years immediately preceding the current calendar year. 5. Similar sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat deposits in NRI accounts could not be made by a person other than the NRI account holder themselves. Vide a judgment dated 18-12-2009 in Civil Writ Petitions preferred by Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of America N.A., in respect of similar Show-Cause Notices, a Division Bench of this Court made following observations: "(13) Mr. Chandhiok also submitted that the circular dated 31-7-1995 was only a clarificatory circular and it only clarified something which was already there in paragraph 13B.22. Thus, according to him, the circular dated 31-7-1995 and the amendment introduced in paragraph 13B.22 did not make any difference and nothing new was added. (14) Mr. Chandhiok also argued and submitted that now that the show-cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Division Bench in Union of India v. Citi Bank, N.A. (supra), we feel that no useful purpose would be served by relegating the petitioners to seek their alternative remedy of appeal under section 90 of the FEMA, particularly, because, according to us, that would not, now, be an equally efficacious remedy. In view of the foregoing discussion, these writ petitions are allowed. The show-cause notices and the consequent adjudication orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs." 6. The Show-Cause Notice served upon the present appellant is one of the several Show-Cause Notices served by the Department upon the different Banks. In another Show-Cause Notice of similar nature, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order tha....