TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulation 2000, (RBI No. FEMA 9/2000-RB dated 03.05.2000 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)), to the extent of Rs. 4,90,43,501.66. Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Ajit G. Nambiar for the aforementioned contraventions in terms of Section 42 of FEMA. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order is arbitrary and untenable on facts and in law. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the Appellants in September, 2015 with respect to transactions that had occurred 15 years ago in 2000-01. Ld. Counsel stated that on 28.11.2002 the Respondent Directorate issued a notice bearing No. T-3/IMP/589-BZ/02(SR) asking the Appellant Company to confirm whether it had submitted the Exchange Control Copies of the Bills of Entry relating to a set of completely different transactions as per the list attached thereto. It was submitted that till 2015 no further inquiry was made. The Respondent Directorate vide its letter in 2015 asked the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and the Citibank to furnish proof of submission of the Exchange Control Copies of the Bills of Entry. Whil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey had made 25 remittances on behalf of the Appellant Company out of which no documentary evidence was furnished in respect of 10 Bills. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate cited the following findings made by the Ld. AA in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 & 18 of the Impugned Order: "14. Thus, it is evident that the Banks have been keeping track of the import transactions of the noticee company and they have not failed in their duties to keep the records as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, as alleged by the noticee now. The Banks have further confirmed that the noticee company has not furnished documentary evidence showing import in respect of the above-mentioned remittances to them. 15. Section 10(6) cast a duty on the person who acquire any foreign exchange for any purpose which is duly declared by that person to an authorised person to use it for that purpose, or any other purpose for which acquisition of foreign exchange is permitted; failing which he is required to surrender the foreign exchange so acquired back to the authorised person within the stipulated period. It is the duty of the person who acquires the foreign exchange to furnish ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted out several mistakes made by the Respondent Directorate in enumerating the transactions in the list appended to the Notice and stated that out of the 31 transactions mentioned therein, 11 were repetitions and 11 had already been dealt with. From the remaining 9 transactions, the Appellant Company forwarded the proof of having submitted the Exchange Control Copies of the Bills of Entry in respect of 3 transactions and informed the Respondent Directorate that it was searching its records to submit the proof of submission of the Exchange Control Copies of the Bills of Entry in respect of the balance 6 transactions, all of which had taken place a couple of years back, only. 7. The Appellants have strongly taken up the plea of latches. They have stated that a delay of over 15 years in issuing the SCN by the Respondent should free them of the charges that they could not deposit the documentary evidences of the imports made against the reported remittances drawn by them from the AD Banks. It is observed that the Appellant Company was put to notice about initiation of enquiry under FEMA by the respondent as early as 28.11.2002. However, the Appellants did not provide complete respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appears that for the 3 remittances in question the appellant had placed on record the Bills of Lading, yet the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal issued the order against the appellants therein. In the present Appeal, the Appellants have failed to produce even the alternative documents to establish that they did in fact import 13 consignments against the remittances made. Moreover, the Show Cause Notice issued on 27.05.2002 in the cited case was served as late as on 15.02.2006 on the Appellant, which is not the case in the present appeal. The cited case has also quoted the Exchange Control Manual to state that in respect of cases which are under investigation the Exchange Control Copy of Bill of Entry should be preserved till the investigating agency gives clearance. 10. The Appellants have cited A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 9 dated 24.08.2000 and in particular paragraph A.17 sub-paras (v) & (viii) and paragraph A.18 sub-para (i), which are being reproduced below: "A.17 (v) Authorised dealers should ensure that in all cases, including cases of advance remittance permitted in terms of paragraph A.11 above, evidence of import is submitted by their importe....