TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,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 for certain remittances, including five (5) remitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 Bank US$ 336736.38 7206.00 07 Dec 2000 6003420722 9. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice No. T-4/8- B/JD/(SB/2013 to the appellant requiring them to show cause in writing within 30 days as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under section 13 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ofUS$ 299,533. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs verbally informed the appellant that tracing a Bill of Entry for a period prior to 2006 would take a long time and that there was no certainty whether it would be traced. 15. It is admitted position that on 02.03.2016, the appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and requested for further time and attempted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 exchange for a purpose other than that declared or used it for any impressible purpose, which the complainant failed to do with mala fide intention in order to conceal the transaction. Non furnishing of original Bill of Entry is not an offence under section 10(6) of the FEMA as held various High Courts, in case after the lapse of long period of time where the respondent slept having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 original is lost and/or not available/traceable. In this regard, Section 65 (c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act") provide that: "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, on when the party offering evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 authorities have recovered the customs duty and other charges payable on the two consignments. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to prove that the goods purchased by remitting the foreign exchange have been brought into India. 26. The photocopy of the Bill of Entry provided by the appellant carries the signature and endorsement of the relevant customs officer, clearly evidencing t....