TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available on record suggest that Respondent No. 1 received foreign inward remittances equivalent to Rs. 5,00,09,003/-during the period between 13.01.2014 to 17.01.2014. It is seen that the said foreign inward remittances were reported within the stipulated time to RBI and also that the allotment of shares was also done within the stipulated timeline prescribed under FEMA. Upon allotment of shares to the foreign investor, a compliance under FC-GPR is required to be filed within 30 days of allotment of shares to RBI though their Authorized Dealer (AD) bank. In this case, it is found that the company has filed FC-GPR for the allotment of shares with their AD bank for onward submission to RBI well within 30 days of allotment of shares. However, it is found that the said FC-GPR filed by Respondent no. 1 has not been taken on record by the RBI owing to pending clarifications from the Respondent 1 with regard to (i) to submit the revised FCGPR authenticating the deletion in the declaration part of FC-GPR (ii) to submit original certificate from the CA, CS with correct name of the investor. 3. The Ld. AA found that Respondent no. 1 had contravened the provisions of Section 6(3)(b) of FE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. On the basis of the above arguments that Appellant has prayed for suitable enhancement of the penalty in terms of Section 13(1) of FEMA,1999. Submission of the Respondents: 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, during the course of final hearing, argued that imposition of penalty on them itself is not warranted as there was no violation by the Respondent since the company had filed the returns within 30 days from the date of issue of shares and that in compliance of the Para 9(1)(B) of the FEM (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000, Respondent no.1 filed FC- GPR reports against the entire investment on 11.03.2014 itself as reported by the Authorized Dealer (AD) Banks themselves and the said returns were forwarded by AD bank to RBI along with all original documents and because of the reason that the same name of investor is mentioned in a different way in the said reports, the RBI sought for clarification and for submission of revised original CS, CA Certificate and that the FC-GPRs filed in stipulated time of 30 days was taken on record by the RBI which only raised a defect vide letter dt. 13.08.2014 addressed to AD Bank a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, Director of Enforcement, Mumbai 2018 (5) TMI 730 (d) Bata India Ltd VS. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate MANU/WB/0058/1996 (e) Order dt.03.07.2023 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of UOI vs. OSR Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. The prayer made by the Appellant department for a technical and venial breaches which is only non-submission of clarification on already reported FDI and that it may be caused due to miscommunication which is not a violation under FEMA and which would not cause any prejudice to the Appellant since there is no economic loss caused to the exchequer and no economic benefit to respondents and that the amount of FDI shall not be considered for arriving at the quantum of penalty since the contravention is not in the nature of restricted or prohibited activity or non-compliance under FEMA and is only in the nature of non-submission of clarification/revised documents of already reported compliance that too without bringing the communication of RBI to the AD Bank to the knowledge of Respondent no. 2 for submission of original CA/CS certificate and submission of correct name of the Respondent no. 2. During the course of argument, the Ld. co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 and 27 of the impugned order. The same are reproduced below: "26. Now, I proceed to discuss the second contravention alleged in the show cause notice i.e. Section 7 of FEMA read with Regulation 15 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2015, as the company failed to export goods for the advance payments received within one year of receipt involving an amount of USD 48,498 (Rs.32,06,196.89). I have gone through the reply filed by the Noticee in their support. They have submitted in their reply that they have not made any export of goods during the FY2015-16, but they have provided software consultation services to their overseas customer and received payment against the same. They have submitted all the documentary evidences in support of this. I have gone through the same. I agree with the submission of the Noticee that they are not guilty of the alleged contravention. 27. In view of the discussions made above, I find that Noticee-1 had contravened Che provisions of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA, 1999 r/w Para 9(1)(B) of Schedule I to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of security by a person resident outside In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents in the matter of Union of India Through A.D., E.D. Bengaluru vs. M/S Yahoo Software development India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ingram Micro India (P) Ltd v. The Special Director, Director of Enforcement, Mumbai (supra) and Union of India vs. OSR Infra Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances as well as legal issues raised in present appeal. So far as the imposition of minimum penalty is concerned, the Ld. AA has discretion to imposed the minimum penalty as there is no bar in the Act to impose such penalty this issue has already been decided in the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.). On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the same reflects fairness, judiciousness on the part of the Ld. AA particularly when there is a technical breach of any provisions of FEMA, 1999. 16. In the light of the above, I agree with the view of taken by the Ld. AA and the arguments produced by the Respondents. It is not a disputed fact that the Respondents submitted the mandatory form FC-GPR within the stipulated time period. Hence, the intention of....