TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of various goods viz. Computer electronic Goods, Floppy drive, CD-ROM, Dot matrix Print Head, electronic goods etc. through State Bank of Travancore; State Bank of India; Standard Chartered Bank; State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Brach, but the said Company failed to submit Bills of Entry for the said import. The details of the remittance are as below: (a) Details of remittance of foreign exchange effected through State Bank of Travancore, Residency Road ranch, Bangalore. Sl. No. Date of remittance Sum remitted in foreign currency Equivalent to Indian Currency 1. 23.5.00 US $ 7695.95 Rs.3,30,926/- 2. 13.11.00 US $ 21596 Rs.9,28,628/- 3. 4.12.00 US $ 37538 Rs.17,60,509/- 4. 22.12.00 US $ 18949 Rs.8,14,807/- 5. 17.01.01 US $ 20000 Rs.8,60,000/- 6. 20.01.01 US $ 20000 Rs.8,60,000/- 7. 23.01.01 US $ 12000 Rs.5,16,000/- 8. 05.02.01 US $ 11284 Rs.4,85,212/- 9. 12.02.01 SGD 40401 Rs.10,92,836/- 10. 24.2.01 US $ 64000 Rs.27,52,000/- 11. 27.2.01 US $ 231625 Rs.99,59,875/- 12. 02.03.91 US $13858.65 Rs.5,92,922/- 13. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry. In compliance to the directive, issued by the Directorate, State Bank of Travancore, Residency Road Branch, Bangalore vide their letter dated 22/2/2007 had confirmed that the following Bills of Entry had been submitted by the Noticee no.1: - Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore vide their letter dated 12.3.2007 had informed that the Noticee no.1 had not submitted any documentary evidence as proof of import and further stated that S/Shri P.M. Sinha and B. C. Prabhakar are the Directors of the company during the relevant period of imports. Noticee no.1, vide their letter dated 6.1.2009 had enclosed two letters both dated 28.11.08 of State Bank of Travancore, Residency Road branch, Bangalore, wherein the bank had confirmed that the relevant Bills of Entry have been submitted by that Company in respect of above mentioned 14 remittances. Noticee 1, through their further letter dated 26/5/2009 had stated that they had already submitted the Exchange Control copy of the Bill of entry to State Bank of India, Peenya branch Bangalore, but could not trace the copy of acknowledgements obtained from in respect of remittances made through them as the same were misplaced during shifti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees alleging the aforesaid contraventions and required them to show cause in writing as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under section 13(1) of FEMA should not be held against them, in the manner as provided for in Rule (4) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, for the aforementioned contraventions of the provisions of FEMA read with Rules and Regulations made thereunder and as to why penalty as provided under section 13(1) of FEMA should not be imposed on them. In response to the Show Cause Notice issued to the Noticees, the Noticee no.1 submitted reply dated 13/06/2013, inter alia, contending that Noticees had not contravened the provisions of FEMA as alleged in the Show Cause Notice and requested the Adjudicating Authority not to initiate Adjudication Proceedings and sought opportunity to be heard in person, in case the Adjudicating Authority decides to proceed further. Replies were filed on behalf of Noticee 2 & Noticee 3 by their advocate vide individual letters dated 12/06/2013, inter alia, denying the charges contained in the show cause notice. Being not satisfied with the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said banks w.r.t. 30 remittances during the investigation of the case. She pointed out that appellant is successful to trace out and furnish the invoices, packing list and airway bill copies, Bills of Entry etc. of the three remittances out of the five remittances, for sum of USD 37100, USD 185500 and USD 222600 to prove the import of electronic goods which are annexed with the present appeal. The Appellant Company was unable to trace out the remaining import documents of the two remittances for USD 30000 and USD 8550 (total USD 38550), as the matter pertains 1314 years prior to the passing of the impugned order. She stressed that Appellant M/s Wipro Ltd. cannot be penalized for the negligence on the part of the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank for not sending the intimation to RBI regarding the import of goods, or, alternatively, lapse on the part of the RBI for not noting the information from the concerned bank and for not properly maintaining its record. She argued that seeing the fact that out of 35 instances Appellant Company is able to prove the import of goods with respect to 30 instances during the investigation of the case and out of the remaining five remittances, appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Appellant Company was unable to furnish any proof of imports qua the five instances of remittance sent through ANZ Grindlays Bank for sum of USD 483750, in-spite of availing opportunity to produce the same during investigation of this case or at the time of filing reply to the SCN. He argued that no benefit can be granted to the appellant just because the proceedings were initiated after 13 years of the incident of contravention. He further submitted that appellants failed to show any prejudice caused to them on account of the delay. Further, since FEMA,1999 is a self-contained law, thus, all the references are to be construed from the Act itself and not otherwise (as held in the case of Kanwar Natwar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2010)13 SCC 255 and Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2239) and since no statutory time period has been prescribed for issuance of a SCN, and adverse inference cannot be drawn in relation to the same. Also, it has been held in the case of Telestar Travels Pvt. Ld. and Ors. v. Special Director of Enforcement (2013) 9 SCC 549 that the delay by itself cannot constitute a ground for settling a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange and Ors. (2009)150 CompCas113(Cal) and also, the violation of provisions of FEMA, 1999 cannot be taken slightly as it an economic offence. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the appeal, being devoid of any merits. 5. After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same. It is an admitted fact that during the investigation of the case, the appellant has managed to trace the documents of import qua the thirty remittances, and accordingly, the complaint was filed before the Adjudicating Authority for the remaining five instances pertaining to only ANZ Grindlays Bank. Out of the said five remittances, the appellant was able to furnish the invoices, packing list and airways bill copies for the three remittances, for sum of USD 37100, USD 185500 & USD 222600 to prove the import of electronic goods which are annexed with the present appeal, at page 92 to 96, 97 to 100, 101 to 105 respectively. Out of the said bunch of documents, the Air Way Bills & Air Cargo Arrival Notice-cum-Invoices clearly reflects the name of consignee as ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. and also notified to importer M/s Wipr....