TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Vashisht Rao, Advs. JUDGMENT JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. These are appeals filed under Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ("FERA") seeking to challenge the order dated 02.06.2016, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 119/2008; 120/2008 and 121/2008. 2. Briefly stating the facts are that M/s Sujana Steel Ltd. ("SSL") (appellant in CRL.A. 1129/2016) is a company registered under the Companies Act. Mr. Y.S. Chowdary (appellant in CRL.A. 1064/2016) was the chairman of the SSL and Mr. S.T. Prashad (appellant in CRL.A. 1131/2016) was the Managing Director of the SSL. 3. During the period 1998-99, SSL acquired and remitted a sum of US $13,73,895 to M/s Techno Imports and Exports,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and the proceedings are not criminal proceedings and hence a person cannot be declared "guilty" for violation of section 8 (3) and 8 (4) of the Act. In this regard, para 37 and 40 of the order dated 02.06.2016 reads as under:- "37. As regards the liability of the appellants Y.S. Choudhary, Chairman of the appellant company, Shri S.T. Prasad, Managing Director of the appellant company and Jawahar Babu, Chief Executive Officer (Foreign Trade) of the appellant company, we do not agree with arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for the appellants that the said appellants cannot be held vicariously liable as they were the whistle blowers and were Executives of the appellant company and were not de-facto in-charge of the business of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of section 8 (3) and 8 (4) of FERA r/w with section 68 (1) of FERA, 1973 are upheld and affirmed. n While the findings in respect of the appellant Jawahar Babu is set aside and his appeal is allowed. The order of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of imposition of penalties is modified and in case of the appellant M/s Sujana Steels Ltd. the amount of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority i.e reduced from Rs. 4 crores to Rs. 1 crore while in the case of appellant Y.S. Choudhary and appellant S.T. Prasad the amount of penalties is reduced from Rs. 1 crore each to Rs. 30 lakhs each. The amount of penalties, if any deposited, by way of pre-deposit by the said appellants will be adjusted and the balance amount will be paid by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Courts" but only as "administrators" and "adjudicators". In the proceedings before them, they do not try "an accused" for commission of "any crime" (not merely an offence) but determine the liability of the contravenor for the breach of his "obligations" imposed under the Act. They impose "penalty' for the breach of the "civil obligations' laid down under the Act and not impose any "sentence" for the commission of an offence. The expression "penalty' is a word of wide significance. Sometime, it means recovery of an amount as a penal measure even in civil proceedings. An exaction which is not compensatory in character is also termed as a "penalty'. When penalty is imposed by an adjudicating officer, it is done so in "adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even till date. We, therefore, in view of the submissions made at the Bar set aside the penalty imposed upon each of the Directors of the Company but maintain the penalty imposed upon the Company, as modified by the Appellate Board. The appeal succeeds and is allowed in the above terms. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs." 9. To my mind, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has rightly placed reliance on the judgment in Director of Enforcement (supra). A perusal of the aforesaid quoted text indicates that the proceedings under the FERA Act are not criminal proceedings but are adjudicatory in nature. The Appellant Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is an adjudicatory body, which ....