Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (7) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re Agreement dated October 6, 1999, with M/s. Speciality Engineering (USA) Company Limited, which has its registered office in Washington. According to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, the foreign partner committed to buying back at least 75% of the goods manufactured by the petitioner. Additionally, the foreign company held a 25% share in the equity. 2. The petitioner's proposal to establish a 100% export-oriented unit was approved by the Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, via a letter dated October 6, 1997, for the manufacture of silk neckties and silk fabric. The letter of permission granted to the petitioner was subject to various condi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the shortfall in obligations and value addition, and why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 11 (2) of the FTDR Act, 1992. In response, the petitioner sent a reply dated March 10, 2008, explaining that due to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in the USA in 2001, the foreign partner withdrew from the joint venture agreement. Consequently, all purchases from US customers ceased, resulting in a shortfall in the export of manufactured goods. After considering the petitioner's reply and providing an opportunity for a hearing, the first respondent passed an order dated March 31, 2008, imposing a penalty of Rs.2 crores on the petitioner under Section 11 of the FTDR Act, 1992. The petitioner's challenge to the order was d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and confirmed by the second respondent is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and does not warrant interference. 7. The arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties are duly considered. 8. Section 11 of the FTTR Act reads thus: "11. Contravention of provisions of this Act, rules, orders and foreign trade policy. (1) No export or import shall be made by any person except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and orders made thereunder and the foreign trade policy for the time being in force. (2) Where any person makes or abets or attempts to make any export or import in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy, he shall be....