1996 (9) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ailure to realise the amount of US $11,476.80 outstanding against the export made under the cover of CRI No. AC 050334. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the then director Shri Shameem Ahmed by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. The other director Shri Jainul Ahmed has been exonerated of the charge. 2. I had heard this case on 12-8-1996 on dispensation application when Shri Asharfi appeared for Dheklapara Tea Company Ltd. as well as for Shri Shameem Ahmed. Shri Asharfi sought leave to file and to refer to the entire correspondence made by the company to show the efforts made by them towards realisation of the outstanding amount. I pointed out that unless the amount of penalty is deposited, it is not permissible ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he quantum of penalty and that the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 in the circumstances of the case is excessive. He further pleaded that there is no wilful neglect or default on the part of the director, Shri Shameem Ahmed, and he did not deserve any penalty, particularly when the company itself has been penalised. Shri Asharfi sought leave to file copies of the correspondence and requested that the final order be passed thereafter. He was allowed to file documentary evidence with copies directly to Shri Gadoo. He did so under the cover of his letter dated 12-9-1996. 4. Shri Gadoo, for the respondent, submitted that although he has no objection to reduction of the penalty, he would oppose Shri Asharfi's plea for exonerating the director Shri Sham....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vour of the ex-director to file this appeal on behalf of the company. 6. However, I do not consider it just and fair to reject this appeal insofar as it relates to the appellant Shri Shameem Ahmed, even though it is a common appeal. I would, therefore, treat this appeal as if the appeal has been filed by Shri Shameem Ahmed ex-director on his own behalf, against the penalty of Rs. 50,000. 7. After considering the submissions made by the parties I am inclined to accept Shri Asharfi's plea that the circumstances as brought out by him do have the effect of mitigating the culpability of the appellant ex-Director in the matter of the contravention. However, it cannot be denied that the appellant ex-director knew that Russia is a difficult count....