2024 (5) TMI 1679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000, r.w.s. 42(1) of FEMA, 1999. 2. As per the facts of the case, a complaint dated 01.12.2015 u/s. 16(3) is filed by the Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office (hereinafter referred to as "Department"), before the Joint Director of Enforcement, alleging contraventions of provisions of FEMA, 1999, as under: "That by not realizing export payments to the tune of Rs. 2,03,38,718.45 (equivalent value of U.S.$ 437848.96) against exports made by M/s Hero Exports, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana during the year 2001 to INROOS 2000, Moscow M/s. Hero Exports, Ludhiana and its partners, noticees at S. No. 2 to 8 have contravened the provisions of section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounced. M/s Hero Exports, Ludhiana filed a complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against Sh. Rajiv Narang, Director of the Russian company INROOS and two directors of Rajeev Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Amrinderpal Singh, PCS, Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division Ludhiana who passed a decree in favor of M/s Hero Exports, Ludhiana. M/s Hero Exports requested to write off the export outstanding of USD 2,65,125.96. M/s Hero Exports had submitted to the bank a certificate of C.A. regarding the realized value of total exports made by M/s Hero Exports, Ludhiana during the threecalendar year i.e. 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2012-13. It has been averred in the Show Cause Notice that there are certain export bi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....001-2002 113,88,35,803/- 2013-2014 179,30,94,158/- 2014-2015 178,72,22,018/- 2015-2016 180,62,00,000/- (Prov.) The noticees during the year 2000-2001 exported goods valued at US$ 681820 to "INROOS, 2000, 12165, Street Stud Encheskaya Flat No. 72, Moscow, Russia". The party remitted the part payment and disputed the USD 447848.96 by alleging quality issue. The final amount was settled at USD 182723 vide MOU dated 26.08.2003. The noticee received cheque of Rs. 60,00,000/- from third party guarantor and thereafter party sent USD 10000 in 2004. The noticee gave intimation to bank regarding write off amount of USD 265125.96 and requested for time for realization of balance amount of USD 172723. The cheque of Rs.60,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uted to noticee. The noticees have a good turnover and there have never been any instance like under reference; that the facts and circumstances under reference prima-facie reveal bonafide on part of noticee and there is nothing to whisper any mis-conduct/malafide on the part of noticee. Being not satisfied with the explanation of Learned Counsel for the Noticee No. 1 and the other noticees, the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the present appellant for not realizing the export proceeds to the extent of USD 1,72,723 (equivalent to Rs. 80,23,000/- approximately). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the sides and have also gone through the material on record. Both ....