TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Enterprises 1,23,23,850/- (b) 211011 27.11.98 -do- 1,23,09,000/- (c) 224937 16.03.99 Self a/c of Indian Association of Dubai 5,47,770/- TOTAL 2,51,80,624/- Investigations revealed that the said noticee firm, Sai International, without any permission from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) took or refrained from taking action which had the effect of securing that the export value to the tune of Rs. 2,51,80,620/- in respect of the aforesaid goods was not received in India by the said noticee firm within the prescribed period or the time extended by the RBI, in the prescribed manner. 3. Investigations further revealed that Smt. P. Venitha, Proprietrix of the firm, was the person in-charge of and responsible to the said firm for the conduct of the day-to- day business of the said firm during the relevant period. Sh. Dilip Nihalani and Sh. V.K Singh aided and abetted the said proprietrix and were responsible for the realization of the export proceeds. 4. On conclusion of investigation, a Memorandum No. T-4/13- BAN/2002, dated 19.04.2002 was issued to Smt. P. Venitha, Proprietrix of the firm on the ground that by her taking action/refraining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xecuted an agreement dated 11.09.1998 with her, whereby, she would lend the name of her firm to him for making exports while he took responsibility for fulfilling all legal obligations with respect thereto. A copy of the agreement executed with Mr. Dilip Nihalani has been placed on record by the appellant. Pursuant to the said agreement, Mr. Dilip Nihalani gave the appellant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to open a bank account of the firm. After opening the bank account, the appellant handed over blank cheques to him, whereafter, the account was operated by him. 7. It is submitted that the exports made under GRs No. 767908 and 211011 were made by Mr. Dilip Nihalani for which Mr. V.K. Singh, the Customs House Agent (CHA) made her sign some blank documents, besides that, she had no role whatsoever with respect to the said exports. The appellant was not aware from where Shri Dilip Nihalani procured the exported material or where he got orders. In fact, when GR No. 767908 was shown to the appellant, she denied signing it and stated that the signature appearing thereon were not hers and had been forged. No documents with respect to the said exports were found to be available at her residence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered without any defence whatsoever. As such, the impugned order having been passed in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice, needs to be set aside on this ground alone. 10. Next, it is pointed out that the adjudicating authority has, in para 26 of the impugned order, recorded the appellant's submission that the signatures on the GR No. 767908 were not hers. However, the adjudicating authority did not return any finding on the said matter which was a material issue and proceeded on the erroneous premise that the said GR forms also contained her signatures. 11. Coming next to the legal contentions, it is argued that Section 18(1)(a) of the 1973 Act imposes on an "exporter" the obligation to furnish a declaration with respect to the full export value of the goods along with an affirmation that the same has been or will be paid in the prescribed manner, whereas section 18(2) provides that "no person" shall, except with the RBI, do or refrain from doing anything or take or refrain from taking any action which has the effect of securing the proceeds of the exports otherwise than in the prescribed manner in the prescribed time. The use of the word "any pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d between the Appellant and Mr. Dilip Nihalani, the Appellant had agreed to permit the latter to conduct the business of import and export using the Import Export Code of the firm which would eventually be transferred to Mr. Nihalani and that, pending such transfer, he could utilise the Code for conducting his business for which a new bank account will be opened and the appellant will hand over blank cheques to him. It was also specifically agreed that Mr. Dilip Nihalani alone shall be responsible for the deeds and acts done by him using the code and that he shall conduct only legal business operations and not engage in corrupt malpractice, Pertinently, it is a contract permissible within section 47(1) of the 1973 Act. Based on the above contentions, it is prayed by the appellant that the impugned order dated 20.06.08 be set aside. Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent 15. The respondents have opposed the arguments and contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance upon the facts brought out in the impugned order. He emphasized that as the proprietrix of the firm which had made the exports which were involved in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nternational with the intention of participating in export trade, but had already participated in the Dubai Shopping Festival on more than one occasion as per her own admission. Even otherwise, ignorance of law cannot be pleaded as a defence since it is a fundamental tenet that every person is presumed to know the law to which he or she is subject. 20. It is also not in dispute that the subject exports were made using the Import-Export Code (IEC) of M/s Sai International, the proprietary firm of the present appellant. The IEC was not transferred in pursuance of the so-called agreement with Shri Nihalani and continued to remain in the name of her proprietary firm. 21. The respondents have pointed out that huge duty drawback of more than Rs. 14 lakh was availed by M/s Sai International on the exports which amounts to a fraud on the government ex- chequer. 22. The so-called contract dated 11.09.1998between the appellant and Sh. Dilip Nihalani is admittedly not registered, nor was it filed before any governmental authority, including the DGFT or the Customs after its alleged execution, which may have indicated towards its genuineness and proved that it was not a product of aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I do not see how it come to the rescue of the appellant in the present case. It is evident that the term "person" used in sub- sections (2) and (3) would take within its ambit not only the exporter but also any other person who contravenes the provision. Therefore, the liability will be on the exporter as well as on any other person responsible for the contravention. The appellant, as the proprietrix of Sai International was responsible to ensure the realization of the export proceeds and cannot evade responsibility for the same. Nor has the appellant alone been held responsible for the contravention in the present case, as even higher penalties were imposed on Sh. Nihalani and Sh. V.K. Singh. 27. I also do not find any merit whatsoever in the contention of the appellant that she was denied the opportunity of being heard. Mere perusal of paragraphs 7,9,10,12,13,15,17,19 and 21 indicate that opportunity after opportunity was given of the appellant by issue of call letters but each time, she came up with one reason on the other for seeking adjournment and expressed her inability to attend. As such, in alleging lack of opportunity the appellant is seeking to take advantage of her o....