TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters dated 22.02.2000 and 29.02.2000, that the RBI had caution-listed one M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. in terms of Section 18(9) FERA, for failure to realize huge export outstandings to the tune of the US $ 75,72,699.95 and US $ 34,35,510.00 during the period 1990 to 1998. 3. Directives under Section 33(2) of FERA were issued to various banks in which the company had accounts as well as to the company and its directors on 25.05.2000 for providing GR-wise complete details of export outstanding and reason for non-realization. The banks provided information in response to the directives issued, which are as below: S. No. Bank GRs Year Outstanding Amount 1. State Bank of Indore, New Delhi 16 1997-1998 Rs. 20,70,13,710.00 2. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, New Delhi 10 1990-1998 Rs. 5,65,31,984.00 3. Dena Bank, New Delhi - - Nil 4. State Bank of Patiala, Janpath, New Delhi - - Nil 5. Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Indore, M.P. 02 - US $ 9,80,000.00 4. The directives and summonses sent to the company and its directors were received back undelivered. However, the present appellant, vide a letter which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t provided to the appellant despite various reminders being sent vide letters dated 11.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the respondent and the appeal was filed on the basis of the copy of impugned order received by the appellant on behalf of his father Mr. P. C. Sogani (since deceased). 9. It was also submitted that the appellant was not served with the Show Cause Notice or the Relied Upon Documents. The notices were sent on the address of the company and not on the addresses of the appellant and other directors. Even otherwise, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were regularly appearing before the Ld. Special Court in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the respondent, therefore, the respondent cannot take the plea that the appellant was not traceable and in fact, the Respondent could have served the notice on the appellant therein, but the respondent did not do so. The appellant only received the directive which was issued prior to initiation of proceedings before the Ld. AA, therefore, he was not aware of the adjudication proceedings going on before the Ld. AA. 10. It was further submitted that the impugned order fails to indicate as to how the appellant has violate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FERA. 16. It was further submitted that the appellant deliberately evaded the proceedings before the Ld. AA despite having personal liability and knowledge as evident from the fact that he sought time of twenty days to respond to the directive issued under Section 33(2) FERA on 25.05.2000 but did not file any reply and remained evasive. 17. It was also pointed out that the Ld. AA issued Show Cause Notice to the appellant by post, however, the same remained undelivered as the appellant left the premises. Similarly, the respondent made attempts to serve the appellant personally and also affixed the notices, but the appellant was not traceable. Nevertheless, the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings before the Ld. AA as evident from his request letter addressed to the respondent on 09.06.2000. Even otherwise, the appellant ought to have informed the respondent regarding change of address, owing to the pendency of investigation and enquiries about which he was aware. 18. It was further contended that the penalty imposed by the Ld. AA is reasonable and proper and not at all disproportionate, arbitrary or excessive. 19. In summary, the respondent submits that the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eminders being sent vide letters dated 11.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the respondent. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on the basis of the copy of impugned order received by the him on behalf of his father, Mr. P. C. Sogani (since deceased). In this regard, it is further contended that all the accused persons, including the appellant and other directors, were regularly appearing before the Ld. Special Court in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the respondent, and therefore, the respondent cannot take the plea that the appellant was not traceable. It is claimed that only the directive issued at the stage of investigation, prior to initiation of adjudication proceedings, was received by him and, therefore, the appellant was not aware of the proceedings before the Ld. AA. 23. A second submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the company went under liquidation and once the Official Liquidator was appointed, the appellant as well as other directors neither had any control over its affairs, nor were they in a position to access the relevant information regarding the transactions so as to defend their actions. The relevant documents as well as assets of the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the postal authorities. Efforts were also made to serve the summons through personal service, which could not materialize as the Appellant was not traceable. 5. It appears from the Impugned Order that the SCN No. T-4/171- D/2001 (SCN-II) dated 25th May, 2002 was sent to the Noticees by post on 27.05.2002. Call Notices for providing an opportunity for personal hearing on 08.10.2003, 23.12.2003, 07.12.2012, 20.12.2012 and 27.12.2012 were returned by the postal authorities with remarks no such person/left the premises. We therefore find that it is on record that attempts were made by the Respondent Directorate to serve the Notice and provide opportunity to the Appellant to furnish his explanation. We also note that the Appellant even if he shifted from the addresses given by him, has failed to notify the new address to the Respondent Directorate, in spite of being aware of the said investigations and enquiries. 6. The Impugned Order also reveals that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was informed that the Company M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. had gone into liquidation and all the documents and assets belonging to the Company were in the custody of Official Liquidator at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvantage of his own wrong and plead denial of opportunity of being heard. As a reasonable man, due diligence and cooperation was expected from his side. He could not have simply assumed that the investigations have been closed without taking them to any logical conclusion. The much more plausible explanation is that he deliberately avoided the repeated efforts by the Directorate to serve the notices upon him. In light of these findings and observations, I do not find a case of denial of opportunity, resulting in violation of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, this argument of the appellant would stand rejected. 27. The amount of contravention which has been specified in the impugned order is failure to realize outstanding of export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 26,36,00,694.00 and US $ 9,80,000.00 in respect of exports made during the period 1990-1998. Penalty which has been imposed on the company is definitely less than 20 per cent of the amount of contravention. Penalty which has been imposed on the appellant is also definitely less than 12 per cent of the amount of contravention. I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that the penalty is huge and ....