2019 (3) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6/LZO/2014/JD (VP) dated 30.05.2014. Briefly, the case is that a transaction in foreign exchange was undertaken by the Varanasi branch of the company Reliance Money Express Ltd. (RMEL) equivalent to Rs. 1,25,30,000/- with another company M/s. Global Forex & Travels, Varanasi, that both of them at the time of transaction did not hold any license from the RBI to conduct the said business of money exchange. The adjudicating authority held the appellants to have contravened provisions of Section 3(a), Section 4 and Section 10(4) of the FEMA, 1999. He also invoked the provisions of Section 42(2) of FEMA to penalise the employee Shri Dasgupta appellant No. 2 as above. 2. I have heard both the parties. The following submissions were made in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y has imposed a consolidated penalty which is blatantly illegal more so because it is not clear as to whether penalties are imposed for all the offences alleged or for some offence. 2. They relied on the following judgment: a. Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, (2015), 4 SCC 609 b. Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) 3, SCR 527 c. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271. 3. On behalf of second appellant Shri Souvik Dasgupta, it was submitted as follows: i. That the appellant was the zonal head of RMEL at the relevant time. ii. The instant case relates to October, 2009 when RMEL entered into transactions in foreign exchange amounting to Rs. 1,25,30,000 with M/S.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the company has not filed any criminal case against him which shows his bonafide. 3. They relied on the following two judgments: a. Haricharan Kurmi & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar (1964) AIR SC 1184 b. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271 4. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel stated the following: i. That branches are a part of the company, therefore, the company is responsible. She referred to the definition of a „person‟ in Section 2(u)(vii). ii. That the transaction has taken place is not denied and the benefit therefore has flown to the company. She referred to the adjudication order where it has been clearly brought out how the ultimate beneficiary of the illeg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lobal Forex & Travels is also not denied. Whether M/.S Global Forex & Travels had a valid license or not is not an issue before me as they are not in appeal before me. Considering that the RBI grants license to the company as well as its branches separately, a fact which was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant, RMEL, Varanasi cannot take shelter under the main RMEL company located at Mumbai. From the emails as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the consignment was sent from Varanasi. It belies common sense that if the transaction had been undertaken by the Lucknow branch as the appellants have tried to argue at one stage then why should the money/consignment/package be not transferred fro....