2005 (11) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sections 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant has pre-deposited the amount of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 where after presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. The respondent has filed written submissions which are taken on record. 2. A Show-Cause Notice No. T-4/38-D/87(SCN), dated 31-3-1987 was issued to the appellant asking it to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against the appellant on the reason that while purchasing Functional Test Jig (consisting of 39 components) from M/s. Allen Bradley, U.K. though shown to have paid higher quoted price of US $ 27745.50 but instead of this amount another quoted price of US $ 11045.20 by the same seller is factually paid;....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, i.e., US $27,745 than what is quoted in the first quotation as US $11,045. Further, it is contended that items were imported from UK Firm which are allegedly over-invoiced as per conclusion of impugned order. But in the fact and circumstances of this appeal, the appellant is wrongly held guilty of mis-utilizing the part of the foreign currency remitted to him for import of the goods. The allegations are that the amount of difference between the aforesaid two prices is neither utilized for the purpose it was obtained nor returned back to authorized dealer or money changer in contravention of the provisions of section 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 4. The first and second quotations bear the same date, i.e., 4-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... item which is specifically known to the appellant and none else. Though a letter written by the foreign seller is produced which says that the price of US $27745.20 is correct but this letter does not disprove what is already available unless the lesser quoted price is revised by a latter date quotation. There is nothing to say that higher price is correct and why not the lower quotation when both are quoted by same seller. 6. It is argued that quotation bearing higher price bears seal of receipt of the office of appellant but other quotation with lower price does not bear such seal of receipt from the office of appellant and this factor alone is sufficient to disregard the lower quotation in comparison to the higher quotation. We are n....