AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the present Bench. The appellant has sent a communication dated 27-4-1999 (received in the Registry on 13-5-1999) requesting for decision of the Board without further hearing as both the parties have filed their written submissions. Shri Gadoo of the respondents has no objection. In the premises, we decided to consider and dispose of this appeal by this order, without further hearing. 3. After perusal of the impugned order, we find, as pointed out by the appellants, that the learned Adjudicating Officer though taking note of the various efforts made by the appellants towards the realisation of the outstanding payment has held them guilty for the reason that they had not initiated legal action against the defaulting foreign buyer. The appellants have submitted that this Board has consistently taken the view that non- filing of the suit in foreign courts cannot be considered as failure to take effective steps to realise the outstanding exports proceeds. They referred to the decisions of this Board in V.K. Goel v. Director of Enforcement [1990] 51 Taxman 28 (Mag.) and House of Handicrafts v. Director of Enforcement [1995] 79 Taxman 96 (Mag.). It has also been pointed out that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inform the developments subsequent to the notice and about the chances of recovery of the outstanding amount; that a reminder to their letter followed in November 1994; the appellants reported the position to their bank under their letter of 28-12-1994 that they had learnt through their business contact that the firm had stopped business in the area and that there were no chances of the recovery of the amount; that vide letter dated 19-9-1995 the appellants asked the bank to obtain the RBI's permission for writing off the outstanding amount; that the bank forwarded that application to the RBI with its recommendation vide bank's letter of 4-10-1995; that the appellants also approached the Indian Consulate in New York in January 1995 but to no avail. 7. Apparently, seeing no chances of recovery the appellants applied to the RBI for write-off of the outstanding amounts. However, instead of permitting write-off as sought by the appellant in October 1995, the RBI advised them to apply for extension of time. This is borne out from the appellant's letter dated 7-2-1996, addressed to GM, RBI. Through this letter he appellant again requested for write-off in view of chances o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the E.D. has been paid and whether the appellant had gone in appeal. Not only this, the RBI also asked the appellants to furnish documentary evidence to show that the overseas buyer was not traceable over a reasonably long period of time. This was duly replied by the appellants vide their letter dated 12-1-1998. On 22-1-1998, the RBI again sent a communication asking the appellants to state the development of the case before this Board. Strangely enough, the RBI also advised the appellants to initiate legal action for obtaining court's order declaring the overseas buyer as an absconder, "in view of the opinion expressed by the solicitor to that effect in para 4 of their letter of 4-5-1996" because the opinion expressed by the solicitors in that paragraph is that "even on conservative basis there are no reasonable chances of recovery." 11. The position as herein before stated by us in respect of the outstanding GRIs is based on documentary evidence and cannot be disputed. 12. In the premises, we may now proceed to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 13. It is not disputed that the alleged outstanding amount still remains unrealised. Und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the RBI were to decide to give extension of time or to permit write-off, the appellants cannot be said to have contravened the provisions of section 18(2), and to pre-maturely hold otherwise would render the findings unsustainable in law. In the premises, we are unable to sustain the impugned order. 14. After perusing the RBI's letters of 2-1-1998 and 22-1-1998, we feel it necessary to observe, before parting, that in the matter of extension of time for realising the proceeds of exports or permission for writing off the outstanding export proceeds, the RBI alone is competent to take decision and they have to take their own decision, not influenced by the factors such as whether any proceedings under section 50 have been initiated by the ED or that any appeal is pending before this Board. No doubt, where a case has been investigated by the E.D. or where the RBI has caused any investigation by the E.D., the RBI can take into consideration the results of that investigation if there is anything relevant therein for consideration of exporter's application. Each application has to be considered by the RBI on its own merits. It is often seen that the RBI refers a matter to th....