TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment of 30 per cent of amount of penalty in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 1-5-2008. Initially the appellants were directed by this Tribunal to deposit full amount of penalty. But the pre-deposit order of this Tribunal was challenged by the appellants which was modified by Hon'ble High Court and they were directed to deposit 30 per cent of the penalty amount. This order has now been complied with by the appellants. These appeals are now taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard elaborate arguments from Shri Dinesh Rao ld. counsel on behalf of the appellant and Shri. A.C. Singh, DLA, for the respondent and gone through the record, relevant law and judicial pronouncements carefully. The SCN I was issued against the appellants for placing a sum of Rs. 2,00,26,245.22 to the credit of M/s. Farlin Timbers (P.) Ltd., Australia, the company incorporated outside India in contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(e) of the FER Act, 1973. The SCN-II was issued for failure to repatriate US $140.71 and US$ 7585.32, which was dropped in favour of the appellants. 4. Show-Cause Notice-III was issued against Narotam Sayal for otherwise acquiri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emitted the proceeds. The amount shown in the final account was the uncovered balance amount on account of the difference between the high invoice value of the supplier and the low value realized from the Indian buyer. 7. The written submissions is filed by the appellant on 9-4-2009, submitting that the accounts were misread by terming the written off amount as "credit to the person resident outside India". The amount written off was never paid to M/s. Farlin, since there were complaints of sub-standard goods, shortages and difference in fluctuating foreign exchange. After taking into account the liabilities of M/s. Farlin under subject transactions, the remaining amount of Farlins liabilities was written off. The import of timber is an OGI, item, where no permission of RBI is required. The transaction did not come under the restrictive provisions of section 9(1)(e). The aim of FERA is to conserve foreign exchange which was fulfilled in this case by writing of the amounts. In case of import, the permission of RBI is not necessary for making write off as against the exports where permission is necessary. There was professional rivalry between M/s. Farlin and M/s. Miers who lodged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... $ 1,63,360.55, US $10,000 and Stg. Pounds 400 which formed part of the charge in the SCN-III, it is argued by ld. Advocate that the appellant, Narotam Sayal gave the instructions to make the payments only in his capacity as an agent of M/s. Farlin or others to take care of the interests of the company. As a consultant in the timber trade, he was contacting a number of timber traders outside India to facilitate the business opportunities of the company for whom he was acting as an agent. He also coordinated the shipments by contacting shipping companies like M/s. Juno Shipping Pte. Ltd. who had been introduced to the principal company by the appellant. The appellant was only an agent who was executing the activities to take care of the best interests of the principal and that he had no personal interests in the alleged transactions. 11. Section 8 imposes certain restrictions on dealing in foreign exchange which provides as under : "Section 8. Restrictions on dealing in foreign exchange.-(1) Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person other than an authorised dealer shall in India, and no person resident in India other than an au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the companies persons were not disowned by him but he tried to justify them by stating that instructions were given by him to make said remittances in the capacity of an agent to serve the best interest of principal. However, the appellant cannot be permitted to accept that part of his statement which suits him and to reject the another part which goes against him. The explanation offered by him is an afterthought and as such unacceptable. A careful consideration of the nature of the transactions, the seized documents and the statements of the appellant clearly demonstrate that the appellant was giving instructions to the overseas company and the foreign exchange was acquired and transferred by the appellant in contravention of section 8(1) of the FER Act, 1973. 14. However, the maturity amount of the insurance policy to the tune of US$ 1,63,360.55 equivalent to Rs. 79.S.727.63 was remitted by the Dubai insurance company to the appellant in his account with Bank of Nova Scotia, New Delhi Branch. The copy of Inward Remittance Certificate No. 86405/5326 dated 14-5-2002 was furnished in confirmation of the said submission. The amount of US$ 1,63,360.55 thus had been repatriated....