TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2003, FPA-FE-575/MUM/2003, FPA-FE-594/MUM/2003, FPA-FE-596/MUM/2003, FPA-FE-614/MUM/2003, FPA-FE-615/MUM/2003 Sh. V. K. Varghese, Sh. K. S. Mohan, Sh. V. J. Jeseph, Sh. T.V.R. Nair, Ms. Beatrice Rose Paul, Sh. L.R. Chandrashekhharn, Sh. K. Thomas, M/s Indusind Bank &Ors., Sh. P.G. Lyer, Sh. P. Padmanabhan, M/s United Western Bank, Sh. M. Y. Phansalkar, Sh. R. S. Sapra, Sh. M.Y. Ganu, Sh. V. L. Jadhav, M/s Cannara Bank &Ors. Sh. S. M. Thakur, Sh. P. N. Shegokar, Sh. B.G. Pai, Sh. R. G. Ambavane, Sh. R. V. Shanbhag, Sh. S. R. Patil, M/s State Bank of Patiala, M/s SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd., Sh. Sumit M. Mahajan, Smt. Kiran Changraney, Sh. Tushar Prabhu Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHAIRMAN SHRI BALESH KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellants: Mr. Nirmal Mishra, Mr. R.R. Gavai, Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Mr. Vandaan Bajaj, Mr. Ojasvi Sharma, Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. A.R. Aditya, Mr. Anwesha Mishra, Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Advocates FINAL ORDER FPA-FE-561, 562, 564, 567, 568, 570, 589, 592, 593, 563, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 586, 591,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the order passed by the Special Director. SCN-II 5. The second Show Cause Notice was issued to the Dravya Industrial Chemicals Ltd. (in short `Dravya') alleging that during the year 1995-98, it acquired foreign exchange to the tune of US $ 3,48,56,069.58 and remitted the same through various Banks in Mumbai to their overseas suppliers for import of goods but failed to bring any goods in India, without the general or special permission of the RBI. It was alleged that the Dravya failed to utilize the foreign exchange for the purpose it was acquired and thereby contravened Section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act of 1973 along with Paragraphs 7C.1 and 7C.2 of Chapter 7 of the Manual of 1993. It was also alleged that Dravya had acquired foreign exchange to the tune of US $ 21,58,284 and remitted the same through various Banks to overseas suppliers in the guise of Merchanting Trade but failed to import or export any such goods. Therefore, the allegation against Dravya was similar to that was made against Hamco. It was even against its employees in terms of Section 68 of the Act of 1973. SCN-III 6. The third Show Cause Notice was issued to Nariman Point Chemicals Industries Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) read with Section 18(3) and relevant Central Government Notifications. The allegation for it was also made for its employees in terms of Section 68 of the Act of 1973. 10. Apart from the six SCNs referred to above, the respondents issued Addendum to SCN-I to IV. It was to the financial institutions in appeal along with its employees alleging opening of letters of credit and remittance to four companies named in different SCNs and were charged for aiding and abetting those companies in contravention of the Act of 1973 by negligence. The appellants have preferred appeals against the order only in reference to it. However, we have given brief facts of the case in reference to those companies and its employees who were charged for contravention of Section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act of 1973 along with Paragraphs 7C.1 and 7C.2 of Chapter 7 of the Manual of 1993. The notice was served on the appellants bank and its employees. The reply to the SCN were submitted which would be mentioned while referring to the arguments of the counsel for the appellants. 11. The allegation against the appellant Banks is, however, for the aiding and abetment of the contravention of Section 8(3) and 8(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while remitting funds in view of the fact that the Bills of Entries were not submitted in time or it was not submitted at all. The allegation was made in ignorance of the fact that there exists no provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder that non-submission of Bill of Entry would be in impediment to effect remittance. 16. The bank, however, remains under an obligation to report non-submission of Bill of Entry for earlier remittance and if there remains pendency of Bill of Entry, the order for blacklisting can be passed by the RBI in its sole discretion which exercise was never taken by the RBI while the appellants were penalized for alleged contravention of the Act of 1973 for the negligence and abetment. 17. It is alleged that the respondents failed to appreciate that the Banks deal with the documents and not with goods and it is otherwise a mandate of Uniform Customs &Practice for Documentary Credits (in short 'UCPDC') to honour the LC for making payment on submission of documents in accordance with the LC. Even Para 7A.1 of the Manual of 1993 requires that the provisions of UCPDC should be followed and reliance has been placed by the appellants on itthus, para 7A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppers/exchange control copy of Bill of Entry as documentary evidence in support of import, subject to the following conditions :- a) Import of designs and drawings has been made strictly as per the Exim Policy in force. b) The transaction is as per provisions of paragraphs 7A.1(iii), 7A.10, 7A.11, 7A.20, 7A.21, 7A.22 7A.23 & 7A.26 of ECM. c) The entire payment relates to the cost of import of designs and drawings only and does not include any other cost. d) Production of undertaking/certificate regarding payment of Income-tax (cf. Paragraph 3B.10). e) The value of designs and drawings imported has been declared to the Customs authorities and incorporated in the Exchange Control copy of Bill of Entry. f) In terms of Research and Development Cess Act, 1986 a Research and Development Cess has to be paid by Industrial concerns importing technology, drawings and designs, on all payments made by such concerns which will also include payments made locally in Rupees towards fare, living expenses etc. of foreign technicians/personnel who have been deputed to India in connection with the import of technology, drawings and designs. Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants banks and its employees acted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure where they had taken due care of the transaction before remittance. 19. Elaborating the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Banks and its employees followed the prescribed limit for sanctioning credit limits during the relevant period from 1995 to 1998. The LCs were established and the bill collection facility was operated in accordance with the prevalent guidelines under the Manual of 1993 issued by the RBI under the Act of 1973. A reference of Paragraph 7A.1 (ii) of the Manual was given to indicate the obligation said to have been performed. As per Paragraph 7A.I (ii), the appellants were under an obligation to follow normal banking procedures and UCPDC provisions, etc. The letter of credit should, in particular, stipulate a condition for Bill of Lading. Remittances for imports under the letters of credit or otherwise should be made against the shipping documents/lorry/railway receipts/exchange control copies of Bills of Entry/postal/courier wrappers, etc. which was followed by the appellants/banks and its employees. 20. Para 7A.21 of the Manua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and abetment of the contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1973 by Hamco group of companies. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, referred to Paragraph 7.A.20(i) of the Manual of 1993 which makes it obligatory on the part of the importers to submit Exchange Control copies of the Bills of Entry/postal/courier wrappers to the authorized dealer through whom relative remittance was made as evidence that the relative goods for which the payment was made have actually been imported in India. The authorized dealer is liable to ensure that it is submitted in all cases including the cases of advance remittances. The counsel for the appellants admitted that Hamco group of Companies being the purported importer of the goods failed to submit the Exchange Control copies of Bills of entry to the appellant banks. The main allegation of the respondent appears to be that the appellants were negligent in opening the LCs and remitting funds despite non-submission of the Exchange Control copies of Bills of Entry by Hamco group. The respondents failed to appreciate that the appellants otherwise followed the mandate of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 22. It is furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in all cases acknowledge receipt of Exchange Control copy of bill of entry/postal/wrappers from importers by issuing acknowledgement slips containing the following particulars: (a) Importer's full name and address with code number. (b) Import licence number and date (wherever applicable) (c) Bank's reference of letter of credit number etc., if any. (d) Number and date of Exchange Control copy of bill of entry/postal wrapper and the amount of import. (e) Particulars of goods imported. (iii) Internal inspectors or auditors (including external auditors appointed by authorised dealers) should carry out 100% verification of all the Exchange Control copies of bills of entry/postal/wrappers and a certificate to that effect should be forwarded, on half-yearly basis, to the office of Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction the authorised dealer is situated. (iv) In case an importer does not furnish the Exchange Control copy of Bill of Entry within three months from the date of remittance (or within prescribed period as provided in paragraph 7A.10), the authorised dealer should issue a reminder to the importer asking him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or abetting the contravention. It is also stated that main allegation was only of negligence which would not make out a case of abetment as per Section 107 IPC. The prayer was accordingly made to set aside the impugned order and with that to allow the appeals. Arguments by side opposite 25. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contested all the appeals. The counsel submitted that no doubt the main allegation for contravention of Section 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act of 1973 read with Section 64 (2) exists against the Hamco Group of Companies but the notices were given subsequently to the appellant Banks finding a case of abetment for contravention of Section 8(3) and 8(4) read with Section 64 (2) of the Act of 1973 and against the employees of the appellant Banks for contravention of Section 8 (3) read with Section 64(2) and Section 68 of the Act of 1973. 26. The learned counsel for the respondents made elaborate arguments on each issue to support the order of the Special Director. The arguments would be referred by us while dealing with the arguments of the counsel for the appellants to avoid repetition of the same facts to make the order bulky. Therefore, we wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the said person shall, within a period of thirty days from the date on which he comes to know that such foreign exchange cannot be so used or the conditions cannot be complied with, sell the foreign exchange to an authorised dealer or to a money-changer. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that where a person acquires foreign exchange for sending or bringing into India any goods but sends or brings no such goods or does not send or bring goods of a value representing the foreign exchange acquired, within a reasonable time or sends or brings any goods of a kind, quality or quantity different from that specified by him at the time of acquisition of the foreign exchange, such person shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed not to have been able to use the foreign exchange for the purpose for which he acquired it or, as the case may be, to have used the foreign exchange so acquired otherwise than for the purposes for which it was acquired. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a person from buying from any post office, in accordance with any law or rules made thereunder for the time being in force, any foreign exchange in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation .-For the purposes of this section-(i)"company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and(ii)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm". 28. The facts on record shows that initially six SCNs were given to Hamco group of companies and its employees. So far as the appellants are concerned, they were served with addendum to SCNs I to IV. The replies to it were filed by the employees, apart from the financial institution and considering those replies and their submissions, the Special Director discharged many of the employees while imposed penalties on those who were found involved. The penalty has been imposed on the financial institutions who made elaborate arguments to challenge the impugned order. 29. We would first deal with the issues raised by the appellants but before that it needs to be indicated the period of contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1973 in the hands of the Hamco Group of companies. It was not of few months or year, rather i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rseas seller. The concerned authorised dealer should also monitor such transactions to ensure that they are completed and proceeds representing cost of goods supplied to the foreign buyer are repatriated to India by the merchant exporter within a period of six months from the date of advance payment". 31. The reference of UCPDC has been given by the appellants and more specifically Articles 13 and 15 which are also quoted hereunder for ready reference: "Article-13. Standard for Examination of Documents: a. Banks must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Compliance of the stipulated documents on their face with the terms and conditions of the Credit, shall be determined by international standard banking practice as reflected in these Articles. Documents which appear on their face to be inconsistent with one another will be considered as not appearing on their face to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Documents not stipulated in the Credit will not be examined by banks. If they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 14.02.2012. The earlier order of the Tribunal was set aside with the remand of case for a fresh consideration of the issues. On remand, the matter has been placed before us for afresh order after considering the rival submissions. It is, however, necessary to quote certain relevant paras of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court authored by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. Paras 4,6,7,9,11,12 and 13 of the judgment of Bombay High Court are quoted thus: "4. The allegation was that the Hamco Group of Companies had opened a large number of Letters of Credit in eight banks for the purpose of importing goods, following which foreign exchange had been remitted abroad through the collecting bankers without genuine documents of title and though the goods did not arrive in India. In the first notice to show cause it was alleged that during the period between 1995-1998 Hamco Mining and Smelting Ltd. made a total remittance of US $ 11.80 Crores and D.M. 20,036 and received back a total amount of US $ 5.69 Crores as purported insurance claims and that the company had fabricated documentary evidence showing Merchanting Trade, remitting foreign exchange wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties, they continued to do so even though the noticee companies failed to submit relevant Bills of Entry indicating the import of goods into India. This continued to take place repeatedly until the "bubble burst" in 1998. On the other hand, the very same banks had received large amounts from the same overseas parties to whom remittances were made against alleged imports either under the guise of insurance claims or otherwise. The Adjudicating Officer held that the suspicion of the officials should have been aroused and they ought to have exercised care and caution while dealing with the noticee companies. Had the documents been carefully scrutinised before making remittances, the bankers would have noticed the fact that the Bills of Lading did not contain the container numbers. By omitting to scrutinise the documents submitted and by allowing the noticee companies to make huge remittances overseas, the noticee banks and their officers were alleged to have aided and abetted contravention of the provisions of the FERA. The Bank officials, it was found, ignored the failure on the part of the notices to file Bills of Entry for which remittances had been effected while at the same tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claims never filed before nor processed through insurance companies. (2) Whether any act or omission of the appellants amounts to abetment by intentional aid or instigation or engaging in conspiracy. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that, (1) The Charge against the respondents to this batch of appeals was of abetting the contravention of the provisions of Section 8(3) and 8(4) within the meaning of Section 64(2) of the FERA, 1973; (2) The Special Director in the Enforcement Directorate had held the banks and their officials guilty of an act of abetment within the meaning of Section 64(2) on the basis of a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances; (3) On a difference of opinion arising between the two Members of the Appellate tribunal, a Third Member was called upon to decide the points of difference; (4) Ex facie, the order of the third Member dated 7 October 2009 would indicate that the material on record has not been considered. The third Member has erroneously proceeded on the basis as if a criminal offence had to be established on a charge of abetting the commission of an offence within the meaning of Section 107 of the Penal Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciently and precisely identified, the bill as a document of title would be without consequence; (4) Though in a large number of cases the Bills of Entry remained to be submitted by the remitter of funds, the banks continued to open fresh LCs and kept on remitting further amounts abroad without checking the veracity of the claims made by the remitter; (5) The Banks were receiving large amounts from the same overseas parties to whom remittances were made against alleged imports either under the guise of insurance claims or otherwise. 12. When the matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Chairperson of the Tribunal took the view that the circumstances which were relied upon by the Adjudicating Officer were remote and were not closely connected with the act of confirmation of the LCs against whom payment of foreign currency was made. The Chairperson was of the view that payment could not have been avoided without inviting a breach of a binding contract in international trade. The Chairperson was of the view that the discrepancies in the Bill of Lading could hardly invite the attention of anyone except at a later stage when things became absolutely clear.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abetment under the provisions of the FERA, 1973 had been established. The third Member has held that, (1) The receipt of a Bill of Entry can only happen after the remittance of foreign currency and not before; (2) The insurance claims were received after the remittances took place and not earlier. Since both the acts allegedly took place after the contravention had taken place, the Member was of the view that the charge of abetment could not be established. In our view, there is a considerable amount of merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Union of India that the third Member before whom the matter was placed for resolving the points of difference has completely failed to consider in its entirety the material on record and the charges that were levelled against the banks and their officers. The order passed by the third Member, besides being cryptic, does not take note of all the materials which were on the record of the adjudication proceedings and from which the Appeals were filed before the Tribunal. Each of the circumstances which weighed with the Adjudicating Officer have already been noted earlier. While according to the Chairperson those circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a named vessel or shipped on a named vessel, in which case the date of issuance of the bill of lading will be deemed to be the date of loading on board and the date of shipment. In all other cases loading of lading will be deemed to be the date of loading on board and the date of shipment. In all other cases loading on board a named vessel must be evidenced by a notation on the bill of lading which gives the date on which the goods have been loaded on board, in which case the date of the on board notation will be deemed to be the date of shipment. If the bill of lading contains the indication "intended vessel" or similar qualification in relation to the vessel, loading on board a named vessel must be evidenced by an on board notation on the bill of lading which, in addition to the date on which the goods have been loaded on board, also includes the name of the vessel on which the goods have been loaded, even if they have been loaded on the vessel named as the "intended vessel". If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading, the on board notation must also include the port of loading stipulated in the Credit and the name o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows that if a Credit calls for a bill of lading covers a port-to-port shipment, banks will, unless otherwise stipulated in the Credit, accept a document, however named, which appears on the face of it to indicate the name of the carrier and has been signed or otherwise authenticated by the carrier or named agent for or on behalf of the carrier, or the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master. The Article further requires that the bill of lading should indicate that the goods have been loaded on board, or shipped on a named vessel. Loading on board or shipment on a named vessel may be indicated by pre-printed wording on the bill of lading. The reference of Article 23 was given to show the necessary ingredients of bill of lading and to address the arguments of the appellants that there was no necessity to refer the name of vessel in the bill of lading. 37. However, elaborately the issue would further be discussed by us but before that it is necessary to narrate certain important issues relevant to the case. The conduct of different financial institutions is not only to abet contravention of Section 8(3) and Section 8(4) of the Act of 1973 by opening the LCs but to ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was made. The facts aforesaid cannot be ignored and justification for it could not be given by the appellants. It further shows negligence on the part of the financial institutions and its employees to abet the contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1973. 40. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the amount remitted by different financial institutions and their officers where bill of entry was not filed and still the Hamco Group of Companies were allowed to have the facility of remittance of the foreign exchange for years together. The following statement in reference to each financial institution would be relevant and quoted hereunder in reference to each Show Cause Notice and Addendum issued in pursuance thereto: "1) SCN I: Issued to HMSL and the persons in charge of the company under sec. 8(3) of FERA 1973 for their failure to import goods against foreign exchange to the tune of US $. 11,80,48,700.33 & D.M.20,036.54 remitted abroad through various banks, the details of which are as under: - Name of banks though which remittance effected. Total amount remitted where no B/E filed (US $.) 1. Canara Bank, against LC 24634662.29 2.-do- Agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total amount remitted where no B/E filed (US $.) 1. Canara Bank against L.C. 1722643.55 2.-do-against Collection bills 3442168.00 3. Oman Intl.Bank 316060.00 Total 5480871.50 vi) SCN IV: Issued to the HICL, and the persons in charge of the company under section 8(3) of the FERA 1973 for their failure to import goods against foreign exchange to the tune of US$.33,83,829 remitted abroad through various banks as under: - Name of banks through which remittance effected. Total amount remitted where no B/E filed (US $.) 1. Canara Bank against Collection bills only 256365.00 2. Oman Intl. Bank 1242246.00 3. Indusind Bank 1885218.00 Total US $. 3383829.00 41. The statement given above reflects that remittance of the foreign exchange was made though there was failure to submit Bill of Entry (B/E) and it remained in the knowledge of the appellants and for that reminders were sent. It can be ignored for first remittance but cannot be for subsequent to first failure and that too for years together. The argument that submission of bills of entry is subsequent to remittance but ignoring that after one remittance if bills of entry was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossible to check with shippers, port authorities etc whether that container was loaded on the ship at the time and place it was alleged to have been or when/ where it was unloaded. This indicates to Mr. Tan that cargo described in Bills of lading which do not list container numbers did not in fact exist. Similarly para 67 reads as under:- "Therefore, the fact that the bills of lading do not mention any number of containers and that the goods were supposed to have been loaded, often in a far port, few minutes or hours after the issuing of the letters of credit prove the non-existence of the goods. The implication of Frobevia which as shipper of the goods mentioned in the bills of lading, ordered the loading, seems obvious." 43. The claim made by one of the financial institutions has been ignored by the appellants and otherwise it would apply to all the financial institutions in regard to their plea for exoneration if in the bill of lading, the name of the vessels and the container number was not mentioned. The plea has thus been made in ignorance of the matter taken up for bankruptcy by few financial institutions. 44. The facts given above are referred to ana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating the import of goods into India for the imports. In fact, the appellants were opening the LCs and making remittance till the fraud was noticed in the year 1998. The period of remittance is otherwise from the year 1995-98. The argument noted by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court is also that if the Banks would have carefully scrutinized the documents submitted by the Hamco Group of Companies for remittance, then it could have been revealed that the bills of lading does not contain the containers number, as required. It is to be noted that the bill of lading is a receipt for cargo. Unless that cargo can be sufficiently and precisely identified, the bill of lading would be a document of no substance. It is also noted that in number of cases, the bill of entry remains to be submitted yet the bank continued to open the LCs and was making remittance of the amount. In view of the observation of the High Court, the main argument raised by the appellants that they were not under obligation to see whether the bill of lading mentions name of vessels or containers number for making remittance of the foreign currency fails. The aforesaid argument shows utter disregard to the directio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er been issued by our office. Further please note the following: a) Letters do not carry our reference numbers. b) Letters do not carry our claim numbers. c) The signature is not of any of our authorized persons and has been forged by some unknown party. d) You will note from our above letter head and if anybody can read and write Arabic, it can be easily seen that letter heads appear to be printed in India and not in Dubai especially since many of the Arabic scripts and words are totally wrong". 48. The Tata Marine Agencies, a Division of Tata Ltd who happened to be the official surveyors for the Insurance Companies vide their letter dated 12.01.1998 confirmed that they have not received any claim from any of the Hamco Group of Companies. The aforesaid is sufficient to prove that remittance towards the insurance claim was made without the claim being processed through the bank. It was again in reference to the forged documents for which remittance was made due to utter negligence of the appellants. It shows and proves to make out a case of abetment for contravention of Section 8(3) and Section 8 (4) of the Act of 1973. At this stage and befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te its commission, is said to aid the doing of that act. Thus, anything done which facilitates the commission of the criminal act and promotes the commission of the act, would bring the person within the scope of abetment. 52. In Arjun Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2009 SC 1568), this Court held as follows: "11. ... Law does not require instigation to be in a particular form or that it should only be inwards. The instigation may be by conduct. Whether there was instigation or not is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetting was instigation and nothing else, so long as there was instigation and the offence has been committed or the offence would have been committed if the person committing the act had the same knowledge and intention as the abettor. The instigation must be with reference to the thing that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation." 54. The law does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a total amount remitted to US $ 17378982.14. The facts on the face of it would show that despite bill of entry not being submitted by Hamco for years together, the appellants continued to open LCs and made remittances and thus cause abetment by negligence in terms of Section 8(3) and Section 8(4) read with Section 64(2) of the Act of 1973. The appellant officers concerned in the process of opening LCs and issuing remittances are liable under Section 8(3) read with Section 64(2) read with section 68 of the Act of 1973. Canara Bank 54. The appellant bank has provided funds to all the four companies including issuance of LCs and collection bills. The details in respect of the same are reproduced hereunder: Name of the company Total LCs opened No. of LCs where no B/E filed No. of remittances where no B/E filed Amount involved US $ HMSL 38 31 66 24634662.29 & DM 20036.54 DICL 14 14 39 27314078.21 NPCIL 5 4 4 1722643.55 The details of the amount remitted by way of collection bills is reproduced hereunder as: Name of the company No. of Bills where no B/E filed Amount involved US $ HMSL 2 17465.70 DIC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chanting Trade transactions. The bank has also opened 7 LCs in respect of Dravya involving 37 remittances totaling US $ 2138730.92. Thus, the bank is liable for abetment and negligence in terms of Section 8(3) and Section 8(4) read with Section 64(2) of the Act of 1973. The appellant officers processed LCs and issued remittances are also liable under Section 8(3) read with Section 64(2) read with section 68 of the Act of 1973. Oman International Bank 57. The appellant bank has made remittances on behalf of the Hamco group of companies in the same manner as was done by the other appellants thus, abet contravention of Section 8(3) read with Section 64(2) of the Act of 1973. The details of the remittances are given hereunder: Name of the company Total remittances No. of remittances where no B/E filed Amount involved US $ HMSL 96 11 2340883.29 DICL 22 10 1030880.00 NPCIL 14 5 316060.00 HICL 28 12 1242246.00 The appellant bank remitted US $ 22496721.85 on behalf of Hamco and US $ 896135 on behalf of Dravya to various parties against Merchanting Trade transactions without following the mandate of the Manual of 1993 and ....