TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....travention of USD 306739 (Equivalent to Rs. 1,38,12,725/-). The relevant period of contravention for the admitted case of the respondent is for the year 2000. The proceedings for adjudication under Section 13 of the FEMA, 1999 were initiated on 28th March, 2013 i.e. more than 12 years. 2. It appears from the record that based upon certain information provided by the Reserve Bank of India, a Notice dated 21.11.2002 was issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking the Exchange Control Copies of certain Bills of Entry. The appellant is not aware of what transpired thereafter. 3. On 05.07.2012, a notice was issued to Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (and not to the appellant) for furnishing documentary evidence towards import of goods f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttances, the appellant informed the ED that as the matter pertained to more than 13 years earlier, the appellant was not in a position to produce the documents. 8. On 28.03.2013, the Assistant Director filed a complaint under section 16(3) of the FEMA regarding the remittances at S. No. 3, 4 and 5 of the table in paragraph 3 above i.e. regarding the following documents:- S. No. Bank Curr- ency Indian Value(Rs.) Foreig Value ($) Date of remittance Ref. No. 1. HDFC Bank US$ 7520714.00 171713.66 26June2000 6001481543 2. HDFC Bank US$ 13475989.00 299533.00 07 Aug 2000 6001751435 3. HDFC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.No.3 in the table in paragraph 8 above), the appellant was unable to trace any documents and requested the Adjudicating Authority to condone the non-submission of documents in this regard. 13. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the copy of the Bill of Entry regarding the remittance of US$ 171,713.66 as the appellant was able to produce the original „out of charge document‟ issued by Indian Customs but refused to accept the coy of the Bill of Entry with respect to US$ 299,533 on the ground that the original was required to be produced. 14. By its letter dated 22.02.2016, the appellant requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for the issue of certified duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry with respect to remittance ofU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bom 144. This is more so, when at the time of the import ( in 2000), FEMA itself did not impose any obligation on the importer to produce the original exchange control copy of the Bill of Entry nor did it impose any penalty for non-furnishing of the original exchange control copy of the Bill of Entry. 19. Section 10(6) of the FEMA is attracted only when the person who has acquired or purchased foreign exchange does not use it for the purpose for which he declared it was being acquired/purchased or uses it for any other purpose for which purchase/acquisition of foreign exchange is not permissible. Therefore, it was to be shown by the complainant, by way of evidence and intention of a party, that the appellant had used the foreign exchang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tocopy of the Bill of Entry submitted by the appellant. 21. There is no law that required the appellant to maintain original documents for a period of 12 years after the remittance took place. Even financial statues such as the Income Tax Act only require maintenance of records for a period of 7 years. 22. Even an authorized dealer of foreign exchange is only required to maintain its records for a period of one year from the date of their verification. Consequently, the authorized dealer in the present case, i.e. HDFC Bank, was also unable to provide any documents when requested by the appellant. 23. There is no legal impediment whatsoever in the Adjudicating Authority accepting the photocopy of the Bill of Entry in case the origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Exchange Control copy of the bill of entry to establish that the goods purchased by utilizing the foreign exchange has been brought into India. Therefore, it is open to the person acquiring foreign exchange to establish that the goods have been brought into India by any other means. In the present case, the goods purchased by the appellant by remitting foreign exchange have actually arrived in India and the same were cleared for warehousing. It is admitted that out of the three consignments, one consignment has been cleared by the appellant on payment of requisite customs duly and other charges. The remaining two consignments have been auctioned by the Customs/CWC as the appellant failed to clear the goods within the bond period and the ....