1997 (12) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73. A further penalty of Rs. 60,000 (sixty thousand) each has been imposed on the second and third appellant, in their capacity as partners of the first appellant, by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. The said dispensation application came up for disposal today. Shri Mirajkar, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted at the outset that the impugned order is untenable at the face of it for the reason that the appellant has been held guilty of contravention in the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Show-Cause Notice (SCN) dated 15-4-1994 whereas the RBI had granted extension of time for realisation of export proceeds first up to 31-3-1994 and later on up to 31-3-1997. That apart, Shri Mirajkar submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ivil suit is not adequate. He submitted that the exports in question were made in 1991 whereas the appellant had filed the said suit in 1993. There is no evidence of any steps having been taken by the appellant during the period prior to the finding of the said suit and after the expiry of 6 months from the date of export. He submitted that it is not known as to when the civil suit will be decided. In the circumstances, the appellant ought to have obtained write-off from the RBI failing which he would be guilty of contravention of section 18(2). Shri Gadoo further submitted that the appellant ought to have sought the assistance from other authorities such as the Indian High Commissioner in Bangladesh. 4. In the premises, we decided to wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment for the goods is delayed beyond the prescribed period. 7. We also find force in the arguments that the adjudication proceedings were pre-mature inasmuch as the RBI has granted extension of time up to March 1997. The learned Adjudicating Officer has taken note of the position that- "The exporter firm approached the RBI for extension of time-limit and the RBI had also granted extension of time up to 31-3-1994; that since the said suit was still not disposed of even after the extended time-limit granted by the RBI, they had filed a further application for extension of time. It is seen from the records that the RBI had once again granted extension of time up to 31-3-1997 vide their letter dated 4-10-1996." However,....