2024 (3) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd now questioning the common judgment of Sessions Court, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed off by way of this Common Order. 3. It is the case of Enforcement Directorate that A1 is the proprietrix of M/s.Sai International located in the premises at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, which exported readymade garments worth Rs.2,45,57,300/- in the year 1998-1999, but failed to realize the export proceeds. The premises of A1 was searched on 20.02.2001 resulting in seizure of 12 sheets relating to telephone bills, withdrawal of foreign exchange etc. The said documents were seized on the very same day. A1 gave information regarding her customers and statement was recorded on the same day i.e., 20.02.2001. According to her statement, she we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA Act, 1973 for failing to take steps to realize bill value of export proceeds and A2 and A3 abetted A1 in sending said consignments towards exports and the export proceeds were not realized, which is in violation of the said provisions of FERA. 6. Learned counsel for A1 would submit that violations, if any, are punishable under the provisions of Customs Act in view of Section 67 of FERA Act. Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act are not independent offences in themselves. Further, Sub-Section (2) only refers to export of goods under Section 18(1)(a) whereas sub-section (3) is regarding the prosecution which is procedural in nature. Even according to the prosecution case, it was A2 who was the person ....